Women who are college graduates are more likely to be virgins. So, it’s not just Ivy Leaguers who are more sexually restrained, but all college graduates.

I still agree with you to the extent that I think there are pockets of promiscuity among educated women, especially among those with graduate/professional degrees, and also probably among those in certain urban areas. Furthermore, I would think that educated women who are promiscuous are probably much more deliberate about it than lower class women who often disapprove of promiscuity in the abstract (I use the term loosely) but are unable to control themselves in the heat of the moment.

Before you players start to wonder if you’re just passing around the same irrepressible slut’s party hole amongst yourselves, note that overall virginity rates are still quite low for the general population, including both men and women.

1.1 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 40 are still virgins.

The CDC also reports that by age 19, 80% of men and 75% of women have lost their virginity.

And, furthermore, keeping in tune with this blog’s unnerving habit of drawing back the curtain on humanity’s clanking machinery, men, being the expendable sex, are more likely than women, the perishable sex, to remain virgins past the age of 25.

[T]he odds a man aged 25-44 has had no female partners are 1 in 35.71.

More women than men are likely to postpone losing their virginity, but during the teens and early 20s their odds follow the identical trajectory. However, by the time a woman enters the age range of 25-44, the odds she has had no male sexual partners are 1 in 58.82—so somewhere along the line women start outpacing men in shedding their virginity.

It is simply easier for the average woman to get sex than it is for the average man, and the later in life virginity rates reflect that reality. (Although the ease with which women can get sex partners may be experiencing a bump upward in difficulty owing to the increasing fattitude of Americans — obese women are 30% less likely than normal-weight women to have had a sexual partner in the last year. Obese men do not have the same problem.)

Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge. But of course, if you are a feminist with a grating personality and all you have to offer men is a zip line to your jungly vagina, then you might be tempted to dismiss the shame you feel from giving it away so freely.

After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.” She then finds that the goal of spreading her legs for a horny bastard is remarkably easy to achieve, which is why the act often leaves her feeling confused and depressed afterwards.

The typical virginal man, in contrast, discovers that it becomes increasingly difficult to lose his virginity with each passing year. For him, virginity isn’t a choice; it’s a sentence. Or it may have started as a free choice, but quickly transmogrified into a punishment. The 40-year-old male virgin who manages to finally bust a nut inside a woman doesn’t feel confusion; he feels elation.

The more interesting angle to the virginity numbers is the discrepancy in rates between uneducated and educated women:

For well-educated ladies looking to join the ranks of the sexually active, unfortunately you’ve got your work cut out for you. Female college graduates are 5.4 times more likely to be virgins than those who never received that diploma—adding a sad irony to the term “bachelor’s degree.”

I suspect this ties into impulsiveness; if you have the time to spare, there are studies floating around demonstrating a link between lower IQ and higher impulsiveness. It could simply be the case that female college grads are better at controlling their impulses, rather than some high-falutin’ notion that educated women are more apt than dumber women to save themselves for marriage deriving from some quaint personal ethos.

But why would women want to, or feel an inner urge to, restrain their sexual impulses? Well, in the ancestral environment, the one that has shaped the contours of our hindbrains to this day, the women who were bad at controlling their sexual impulses were often the ones stuck with babies from men who weren’t willing to stick around and help raise them. More circumspect women were better at screening for men willing to dependably commit to them, a male trait that is exhibited when a man wines and dines a woman while waiting patiently for her to give it up. Evolution favored the propagation of the latter’s genes (with exceptions), and so this female restraint instinct survives into the modern world, in an age of contraceptives and big daddy government, and its existence spurs all sorts of rationalizations from women seeking to make sense of their antediluvian feelings.

Nevertheless, the CDC data showing that educated women are more likely than uneducated women to be virgins seems counterintuitive to me. I swim amongst the educated set and, accounting for a few memorable exceptions, I have rarely befriended or befouled a virgin. On the whole, smart chicks are novelty seeking; they love meeting new men and flirting like femme fatales. Case in point: Smart, educated girls may be more likely to be virginal, but they are also more likely to cheat.

And my experience is not unique; I know few men, alpha or beta, who can claim to plunder virgin puss regularly. The existence of legal age virgins in the megalopolises is so rare that meeting and bedding one would be immediate cause for a triumphal parade around the city square.

As I have said on occasion, you will find that if you keep your eyes open and observe the world around you without self-assuaging delusion, that science eventually comes around to confirming 9/10s of your common sense. Yet once in a blue moon, the scientific data throws a curveball. This is one of those times.

Herewith I offer some explanations for the discrepancy between most men’s real life experiences with a paucity of educated virgins and the self-reported virginity data:

– Women lie worse than men on self-reporting surveys. This is scientifically validated. Now, participant lying doesn’t necessarily indicate that the sexual activity trend lines are wrong; for that, you’d have to somehow show that women are lying more now than they did on past surveys, or that educated women lie more than uneducated women. (In fact, the latter is a distinct possibility, as it has been shown that smarter people are generally better at the deceptive arts, and have a better grasp of what kind of information about themselves is potentially incriminating.) However, the very fact that women do lie about sexual matters more than men should give one pause about taking their virginity claims at face value.

– Player selection bias. This is a favorite assertion of the anti-gamer, feminist and omegavirgindork crowd (losers of a feather flock together): “Oh, you’re just nailing the sluts who like to screw around, so you never get a chance to meet the angelic hordes of chaste, virginal girls.” On its face, this seems plausible, but it breaks down badly upon closer inspection. One, many seducers meet women randomly, outside of the clubs where sluts tend to congregate. For instance, I have met women from extraordinarily varied occupational and educational backgrounds, in stores, at events, on the street, in buses, while driving, at the beach, in class, at work, at weddings, at picnics, and even at a funeral. It would be a remarkable coincidence if all those women were raging sluts. Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public. Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Luckily, by the early 20s, most girls have abandoned the charade of virginity, so player selection bias ceases to be of much relevance for men who don’t routinely try to pick up teenagers.

– Confusing education for introversion. Education, conscientiousness and introversion tend to correlate. If educated women have a higher virginity rate than uneducated women, that may just be a reflection of the fact that educated women are more introverted, and thus less likely to be energized by large mixed groups of men and women where hooking up is more likely to occur. Thus, players who plunder the big cities may be missing out on the virgins because those women are less comfortable mingling in social settings. This particular explanation is speculative, so take it for what it is.

– Obesity is just another word for celibacy. As noted above, there have been studies which found that fat women have less sex than thin women. Not very surprising, as men really don’t want to sleep with fat women if they can avail themselves of the sexier alternative. (A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

Anyhow, assuming the premise is true — that fat chicks are more likely to live a sexless purgatory — then the obesity epidemic may explain decreasing rates of sluttiness among American women. However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes. Or it could be the case that educated fat chicks, as the more introspective subspecies, are more likely than uneducated fat chicks to sequester themselves away from human contact and sunlight, thus shifting on one elephantine foot higher virginity rates toward the college crowd.

– The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN. The hamster is happy. Perhaps this explains better why educated women have higher “virginity” rates — they are using a very loose definition of virginity. And wouldn’t it be just like a smartie to wordplay her way out of an uncomfortable self-assessment? I suspect the Audacious One would be interested in GSSing his way through this byline to the sexual behavior annals. Annals. Heh.

– Bifurcation Nation. I have previously offered as an explanation for the supposed decreasing overall rate of sluttiness among American women the hypothesis that the nation is bifurcating along sexual behavior lines:

[P]erhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

Again, purely speculative, but worth investigating. (Paging Charles Murray.) I admit I don’t have reams of experience with evangelicals or Hasidim, so for all I know there is a mass of middle America religious women out there who are refusing sex until a ring is on it. Maybe a lot of these red staters who have the smarts go to college and as a consequence swing the co-ed virginity rate higher. Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

***

Bottom line: Human sexual behavior is exceedingly difficult to pin down, as the nature of the enterprise requires survey respondents possess a bracing comfort with exposing the underbellies of their egos, and nothing is quite as critical to the healthy functioning of the ego as faith in one’s SMV. Don’t trust self-reported sex survey data. Chicks lie. Educated chicks are probably not much more virginal than uneducated chicks, but there is room to disagree on this point based on potential skew in men’s perceptions of the active, college educated dating market. Nonetheless, overall virginity rates are quite low after the late teens, so men need not worry that a shrinking pool of sexually enthusiastic women is about to cramp their styles.

This post grew beyond its preplanned bounds, much like a virgin’s hymen stretches to its breaking point when confronted by the concentrated force of my life-giving battering ram.

Like this:

Related

388 Responses

i believe that there are some women, in the 1 to 5% range, who consciously or subconsciously get fat precisely to drop out of the mating game. For any of a number of reasons, and not just the ugly ones.

Agreed. I think much more than 1 to 5% of women are choosing this option. Is it just because they don’t know how to handle their own sexuality (I don’t know that either) – maybe it’s because entering sexual marketplace really is scary. People can find out that you are not good enough for them.

Here’s a comment from a few years back over at Whiskey’s Place. Another is the obesity epidemic among women. Fat chicks are automatic losers in the sexual marketplace. There’s no way they can kid themselves otherwise. So why do they do it?

Maybe they don’t want their lives to the 24×7 sexual negotiation feminists so desperately desire. 50 years ago these young women could have kept themselves thin without having to worry about constantly fending off unwanted sexual advances. There were courtship and other rituals for keeping sex separate from most of daily life.

Which is not to say these women don’t want to enjoy sex, they just don’t want to have to think about it all the time with every man they meet. So subconsciously they pork up as a defense mechanism.

The flip side to this is “men’s only” clubs, where men could meet and hang out without having to deal with women.

I think you used ‘sexuality’ when you meant ‘ego’. Women are too vain and self-obsessed to face the realities of their SMV that is held up in stark relief when they are unable to snag an alpha for more than pump and dump. So they opt out all together. The cowardly copout.

Strange that a gender which is so sensitive and fragile in the face of rejection, routinely dishes out undeservedly harsh rejection to well-meaning betas with apparent relish.

If it were up to women to be “equals” with all the initiating courtship and risking rejection that comes with it, the human race would quickly die due to lack of procreation.

Today’s women have been bombarded with feminist, anti-female, anti-motherhood, anti-family messages their whole lives. In their private life and at school. These messages are in direct conflict with the natural feminine instinct to be wooed by a strong man, and raise a family in a nurturing manner.

Look at how Ann Romney got attacked for achieving what most girls fantasize about. It’s no wonder so many women have no idea what to do, and opt out by porking up.

I think among married American women, it is far greater than 5-10% that deliberately get fat to avoid intimacy. I would put the true figure at most of them and that this is the principle reason, albeit often subconscious, that they allowed themselves to get too fat in the first place. Why this happens has a lot of reasons, but I think it’s pretty common.

Wasn’t that one of the theories to explain anorexia nervosa and other eating disorder in young women? The girls starved themselves to avoid developing secondary sex characteristics. I don’t know (or care) if they still think that. Maybe now it’s all explained by biochemistry.

Of course, now that thin is so in and so uncommon, that wouldn’t really help to much.

I was once friends with an elderly big-shot med school professor who told he never treated a single anorexic/bulimic woman until the mid-1960s. That’s when casual sex became increasingly expected if you were dating. Not eating = no tits, ass, thighs. Also no menstrual periods. Their way of making secondary sex characteristics disappear so they’d be less attractive to men.

That is really interesting. In fact, the ideas in this whole thread hadn’t ever occurred to me … but they make perfect sense.

Question: What would account for the fact that an overwhelming percentage of anorexic women are either white or identify with typically “white” Western middle-class values? Do such women feel that threatened by their own sexuality? And what does that say about Western civ?

There are a lot of betas out there. An introverted woman would feel dessicated in their company. Too introverted, however, and they grow afraid of anyone who’se too forward or aggressive. They overreact, throwing out crazy vibes that might drive away a man with alternatives.

So it was with the virgin I fouled. Lots of introversion, lots of beta orbiters, lots of static and noise at the prospect of sex. I am a patient man; otherwise I’d be gone and the hymen would still be in my place.

“After a certain ripe age, a virginal woman might say to herself, “Why am I holding out for an alpha male? The odds of landing one diminish with each passing month, so, fuck it, I’ll take the next cocka that comes alonga.””

Smart girls are pickier. I find it try hard when smart girls try to be too sexy. It seems a little forced. They should be comfortable just being a little nerdy, without being arrogant. They’re more charming that way.

[heartiste: i dunno. maybe for nerdgirls, but some really sexy chicks i’ve known were also very smart. one more point: pickiness does not necessarily indicate prudishness. a girl can be very picky and slutty at the same time. how? by sleeping around with only the alpha males she meets. in fact, most sluts are, despite conventional wisdom, quite discriminating in their tastes.]

Plus One on Anonymous. But women with those numbers are impossible to find in the US unless you are still in high school. So the respectable American Alpha fux n chux the American broads and goes overseas if he seeks commitment.

Maybe they exist right under your nose, but you keep yelling at them😉 How is it respectable to fuck ‘n chuck? And why do you expect women to adhere to these standards when the prize of marriage is no longer in the offering?

This is what kills me. The sexual “marketplace” is like an arms race. Guys complain about loose women, but won’t spend time on girls that won’t put out before the first date, and women complain about guys that won’t commit, but then sleep with a guy they met two minutes before. Everyone agrees the status quo doesn’t work, but no one will do anything about it.

Depends on your age. I’m willing to tolerate a high number if they resulted from relationships greater than 3 months, and the girl demonstrates some self-awareness in learning from those that were mistakes or impulse-driven indiscretions.

You have to connect to a woman for a committed relationship to last. If you are going abroad to meet young virgins for a long term relationship, watch out my friend. To make it work in the cesspool that is the U S of A, you have to take women as you find them and connect to them on their level. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have expectations or standards. But you’re living in a fantasyland if you think you’re going to meet some virgin that wants to be a 1950s wife for you. Fantasyland.

Ever heard of marriage/commitment strike.
Or keeping the relationship shallow. I mean, props if you’re finding it fulfilling to bond with sluts. But my understanding is that most men hate the idea of settling for damaged goods, so any propensity to do so comes from a place of despair and scarcity.

I’m lucid about my chances to find a 1950s wife, and I’m not going abroad. But I’m fine with the idea of spending my life basically alone and stealing women’s prime years, since they are no longer fit for marriage.
The war of the sexes is a magnificent zeitgeist for men who have enough weapons to engage in it. Forsaking the happy little family lifestyle is a small price to pay.

@gunslinger I don’t think you understand… I meant before you are married. It’s going to be pretty hard for her to un-sleep with the guys she’s slept with. But you are right, both parties can walk away, but it’s unrealistic to have high standards for her, but not for yourself.

You question really needs a bit of rephrasing. It’s not a hard cutoff between acceptable or not. Instead, SMV is a function of several variables, one important one being previous sexual history. A fairly simple approximation would be SMV = Max potential SMV – #of partners. So, for example Candice Swanepoel (Love that girl’s look and demeanor. The next Giselle in my book) would be tolerable even after 3-4 partners.

was she a “virgin virgin” or a “technical virgin”
AND
how long had she been going out with Jamie Mazur (a successful businessman) before she had sex with him?
The incentive for a woman to stay a virgin, only exists if she is around the guy whose threat of not being around is something she can process.
TLDR: A guy a woman wants, can ask a lot of that woman.

(Unfortunately, no surprises about her famous ex-boyfriends: We are told ahead of time that any questions about Lenny Kravitz, the model-collecting rocker with whom she was allegedly involved, are “off-limits.” Ditto for Derek Jeter.)

Are there any smiley’s to signify “sigh” and “rolleyes” simultaneously?

First of all, you have to get out of the trap of metrosexual presumption. Women the world over simply do not behave like the modern American urban skeeze with no control over her sexuality.

Second, women at the level of Lima are not like the women at your level. They live in an entirely different universe, where everybody is a ten, celebrity is a factor, and sexuality runs along a different dynamic than the-only-cute-girl-in-a-bumpkin-bar with a dozen drunks sniffing up her skirt. There are reasons other than P&D for men like Kravitz and Jeter to publicly date women like Lima, though this might not be conceivable to you.

Finally, the actual status of her virginity is immaterial. What matters to celebrity is reputation. Lima’s claim is wildly countercultural; there is nothing in it but grief for her. Why would she lie? Again, she’s not Suzie Rottencrotch trying to salvage her one-town reputation with the locals. The world expects Lima to not be a virgin. Indeed, it is such an expectation that people like you assume sluttiness until proven innocent — to such a degree that her simple declaration is not just automatically unbelievable but so unbelievable that anyone who might imagine otherwise gets an “eye roll.”

It matters when a woman like that makes a claim like that, not because of her accomplishment but because of how a figure of her stature chooses to present herself to the watching world. “Hypocrisy is a homage vice gives to virtue.” The impulse to debunk Lima (by digging through her past relationships) demonstrates one thing only: the essential need to declare chastity impossible in normal-to-beautiful women. Without this mythos, the metrosexual industrial complex collapses.

I will agree: In the median experience, women cannot control their hypergamy but rather are controlled by it. That is however a far cry from saying hypergamy by its very nature is uncontrollable under any circumstances. At the skinny ends of the bell-curve, different standards apply. Both the elite and the trash are immune from the worst consequences of their behavior, the former by wealth, the latter by absence of expectation.

The modern tragedy is that marginal standards have rapidly become regnant over the massive middle, and the bourgeois are free to act like either ghetto-trash or celebrities, but without the resources to liberate them from consequence. So they fuck around like, say, Lenny Kravitz and do drugs like, say, Kate Moss. But instead of missing a photo shoot or have a grainy video posted on TMZ, they lose their job, go bankrupt, and tow along a brood of unsupported bastards.

Adriana seems to have a likable and unassuming personality. She doesn’t seem to be sanctimonious about her virginity at all. It might be because she is Brazilian, rather than a politically active American woman.

Sorry, Matt, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire… not only is her virginity seriously in question, but the whole “off-limits” on discussion thereof hint towards a race-mixing slut par excellence who doesn’t want to screw things up with her “Serbian prize”.

Mr Eliot, maybe you didn’t read his post closely enough, but it’s pretty clear that you two are in agreement.

All Mr King was saying was that it’s significant that Adriana Lima presents herself as a virgin (even if it’s not true). Because that throws a lot of assumptions about gorgeous women into question. Got it?

I do note, with sadness, that you bring race-mixing into the conversation AGAIN. The post wasn’t even about that, and this isn’t a website for white supremacists; it’s a website about sexual relations. Please keep your ugly views about race to yourself.

And for the record, I disputed Matt’s earlier (seemingly honest) belief in the subject’s virginity, and dispute even more the back-pedaling statement that whether it’s true or not is immaterial.

My point is, the hypocrisy of both the subject and the media trumpeting the alleged virginity of this Brazilian doll (and, ahem, don’t ask her about her ‘past’ with Mssrs. Kravitz and Jeter, cough, cough, wink, wink) inspires nothing beyond mirth and cynicism.

I know a woman who was dumped by the guy she was “in love with” and then had THREE different partners within two months after the guy bailed. I don’t know if Jenna Jameson even had three different guys between Jay and Tito Ortiz.

Women are indelibly imprinted by their third fuck. Not third partner, but third session. I saw some scientific study (of the kind so popular in these quarters) to back it up, but have no desire to search for it. Experience, observation, and common sense are enough for me.

The “Five Below” theory of female sex partners is bunk. We are so used to soul-scarified women that we have adopted it as a new normal. The third cock in them and the light starts to dim. Most men cannot imagine a well-adjusted female sexuality, much less have ever met an exemplar.

So you can adjust to this world of sluts, as dictated by feminist theorizing, or your will can force readjustment in your sexual relations and create, girl by girl, a recovered expectation of virtue. Damaged goods are damaged goods. Most of you have only ever known sour milk and never tasted the fresh or sweet, except perhaps in your junior high days when you didn’t know shit about shit. The mockery of female virtue is a key component of the feminist deconstruction project. Shaming women for their easiness is not only natural, it countermands the postmodern reordering of manhood into a society of enslaved epicene pissboys.

The world has always been full of sluts. It’s just that back in the old days, you had to pay them in order for them to not be coated in pig poop or phosphorus or something.

Now you have sluts who pay their own bills, and you’re complaining. It may be a legitimate complaint, but take care that you understand what you’re asking for. In order for women to not be independent sluts, they would have to be dependent sluts. This would swing the balance back in the favor of men, but it would only be good for the actual men, not the pissboys.

The pissboys would still be holding their dicks like they are now, and later try to swing things back to where there would be independent sluts.

Truth be told, I kind of prefer the dependent slut way. It’s nice to be with a guy who would pay my bills if I was willing to behave more pathetic than I am. I’m not sure that Americans are ready for that.

“The world has always been full of sluts. It’s just that back in the old days, you had to pay them in order for them to not be coated in pig poop or phosphorus or something.”

Maybe you could read a book or something before you say things like this. The world was precisely NOT “full” of sluts historically, because slutty women bore the full cost of their behavior. As noted above, five thousand years ago, a loose woman would pay the price for raising some flighty fellows bunker-busters, but today she gets welfare, maternity leave, food stamps, child support, more welfare, EITC…

Today, we directly subsidize sluttery, and as a result, get more of it.

Anonymouse, what you mean is that now a higher proportion of women in the upper middle to wealthy classes are now openly having premarital and nonmarital sex. For the poor, from Saudi Arabia to Amsterdam, it has always been normal to trade sex for resources and safety until very recently when women have been able to have sex without having to ask for anything in return.

The difference between a whore and a slut today is very clear, but it wasn’t so a mere 100 years ago. All you’re really shaming a slut for that you wouldn’t shame a whore for is being less expensive in the initial investment or less of a sure thing or amusing herself without having to depend on a man to finance it individually.

My grandfather had a mistress…a fairly independent single woman who was infertile. For an infertile woman or a woman who did not want children or who was unsuitable to raise them back in the day, there was plenty of shaming, but that shame rang about as hollow as the empty bellies of kids who did have dads but whose dads were, for the most part, poor. Being hungry, which most people were to some degree, will drive a person to do a whole lot of things not limited to but including having sex with a wealthier or simply more resourceful man.

As to my grandfather’s mistress, I believe she bore an inordinate amount of shame. Nobody was going to marry her. What was she supposed to do? Do you have a better alternative for those of us who didn’t win the happily ever after lottery? What exactly would depriving herself have gained her? What would me depriving myself gain me? My self respect was forcibly amputated at the age of six when I found myself in hand to hand combat with boys who’d been taught that I was their equal. That and many other life lessons in the age of female supremacy have taught me that self respect and dignity and being ladylike as more than social lubricant and a seduction tactic for nostalgic pseudo nihilists mean shit anymore.

People shagged like rabbits then as they do now, only the frame is different. I don’t know what kind of good old days you think there were or what you think is going on even in Islamic countries now, but people are doing it one way or another.

If you want a real improvement, then it would be a better idea to shame skanks…dirty women with no honor or discretion. I’d call most of the so-called sluts today skanks because what they’re doing and the way they behave goes far beyond mere non marital sex.

“Had to pay for them” also meant they walked around with a price tag on their backs. Meaning, no pricetag -> not slut.

The reason men today aren’t served with doing their part to further our culture, is that is has become extraordinary difficult to have any kind of confidence you are not sinking your life’s work into some sluthole. When sluts are easier to differentiate from worthwhile women, many more men are in a position where doing that what needs to be done to further society is a win for them.

Men have always sunk their lives into slut holes. Sluts just didn’t used to be so damned hostile. The independence is what gives them the luxury of being bitches about it. So really, it’s bitches you’re mad at, not sluts. Sluts kept a good proportion of your grandfathers from abandoning your grandmothers. Some of your grandmothers were sluts but discreet and kind about it so you’d never know it. They upheld ideals as ideals even though the majority of their lives were far from ideal.

This would swing the balance back in the favor of men, but it would only be good for the actual men, not the pissboys.

A culture of dependent women creates “actual men,” and vice-versa. The pissboys and sluts are the residue of independent womanhood.

Of course “Americans are[n’t] ready for that”! They have to be made ready. The PUA-game renaissance is a sneak preview of actual men changing the culture, one tragic heartbreak at a time.

The world has always been full of sluts.

An inner-slut who cannot slut around might still be called a “slut,” but now we’re splitting hairs. It doesn’t matter that a woman experiences hypergamy. What matters is the culture (men) allowing her to freely pursue that hypergamy without shame or fear of punishment. Either we control the acid at the individual sources, or it eats every civil structure in its path.

The “world” has not “always been full of” unguided women debasing themselves of their only real asset, early and often. True, this era is not exactly anomalous — what with the fall of Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, Periclean Athens, pre-revolutionary France, etc. We’re living through one small part of the cycle. Usually a very short part of the cycle before yielding to the next evolution of dissolution and chaos. We have extended this most recent holiday from history perhaps longer than most through wealth, technology, and a stubborn ideological attachment to lies. But they all end in the same ruin.

King A, you’re right, and I didn’t consider that angle of it. Account it to my leftover sheltered princess-tardation…discipline beginning at the top button upbringing and such. The terms did make all the difference, and did serve to limit hypergamy even among those who rebelled against or simply didn’t fit into the system.

Since unguided slut culture is only maybe 20 years old and already causing a lot of pain for women, I don’t see it lasting very long. Maybe 2 years ago when I first started telling women in the field what I learned here, it seemed like it was going to be a hard sell, but it is surprisingly easy.

…in Israel anyway. I’m just reinforcing their grandparents. I don’t know what’s going on in the field in the U.S. aside of my family.

Do you think things will really fall apart, or is there enough backlash to force a restoration of relationship balance like about say 1965 when a person could choose to experiment, but there was enough structure to support those who weren’t too far out there?

“Things will really fall apart,” yes. The center cannot hold. Things are already falling apart. But it won’t be a global collapse. There will be enclaves and gated communities, keeping the antisocial out, along the lines of Wells’ Morlocks and Eloi or Huxley’s fey inhabitants of World State vs. the savages on The Reservation. Charles Murray’s Belmont and Fishtown are an early study of this scattering. An essential lawlessness of wide swaths of this country already exists in Mexifornia, where law-abiding citizens pay outrageous fines for trifling regulatory lapses (because the state knows they will pay) even as an entire Spanish underground culture thrives without official attention (because the state knows it’s pointless).

If you seek the monument of the sexual revolution, look around you. You’re soaking in the dystopia. I know women of all ages intimately, and it makes me heartsick to see their lights going out so young because their mothers told them that whoring themselves is liberation (if the wretched leathery feminist “moms” haven’t already pimped their girls Toddler-and-Tiara style).

Do you think things will really fall apart, or is there enough backlash to force a restoration of relationship balance like about say 1965 when a person could choose to experiment, but there was enough structure to support those who weren’t too far out there?

There was no “balance” in 1965. There were only harbingers of the upcoming cataclysm. We started going off the rails well before then, at the turn of the 20th century.

Let go of this weird postmodern idea of “choose to experiment.” When you experiment on yourself, you kill yourself. It is an masochistic impulse for vivisection, and in women it is triggered by the hypergamous grass-is-greener syndrome. I know it is hard to even detect the suicidal tendency indistinguishable from modernity because we have lived with it for so long. We have rechristened self-mutilation as “freedom,” but it is still a species of self-hatred.

I don’t do utopian thought experiments: they are exercises in imaginary tyranny. I don’t know what the best society looks like. I only know what principles are naturally occurring and utterly necessary for civilization to exist and prosper. When women understand that their motherhood is not just noble in itself but the linchpin to the social stability around them, they will stop treating it as an inconvenience or a burden or a disease and return to the idea — the idea so instinctive in her that it will never be eradicated — that creating and nurturing life is worth dedicating their lives to. Just as it always has been and always will be, save a few historical hiccups when we think we can outwit Mother Nature.

Any attempt at society-sanctioned slutting usually ends quickly, Mr King. We need to feel that it’s a transgression.

Russia experienced an enormous increase in sluttitude during the Communist Revolution. Marriage was devalued; bigamy and polygamy were promoted. These practices collapsed within a decade, and the traditional view returned.

In America, utopian communes such as the Oneida community and the Swedenborgs also tried free love. They didn’t last. The Mormons had to give up polygamy within a couple of decades; now the LDS mainstream is as traditional as they come.

I remember that Kate Bolick article quoting some young women who were apparently tired of the pressure to slut. Since I don’t typically have heart-to-heart convos with 21-year-olds about their sex lives, it was a revelation. This stuff doesn’t last, in the macro sense.

People who lived in the 70s point to that decade as the greatest slutting decade ever. It was after the introduction of birth control but before the advent of HIV. How much longer will it continue?

Although I was quite attractive when I was young, and some say I still am despite my size, I probably would have stayed a virgin, at least until marriage, had my shelter been more than a facade. I have family who are very conservative. Though I view them as lost in a kind of spiritual Stockholm syndrome, I have a kind of “whatever works” attitude about that bit.

For a fertile, young woman who is in the running for a good marriage, she should do what she can to increase her chances. Keeping one’s legs closed might not guarantee a good future, but for certain giving it up to guys who don’t give a crap about you before you’re old enough not naturally not give a crap yourself, will wreck it. The (hopefully discreet) slut life is only for women who never want to ever settle down, or women who’ve been there and done that already, and don’t want to do it again.

In experience, the hamster isn’t going to yield to anything short of alpha aloofness. A beta-organized scientific survey? Please. That double-team last thursday after free drinks at Slippys was pure accident, doesn’t count. The chick is thinking, “wait, what if other girls are answering yes to this question? I better answer no to be safe.” In other words, hamster protecting the flock.

But in experience, working hipster/art chicks throw abandon to the wind when the weekly party arises. The same age artistic/creative chicks in college are dead-set to get that diploma. The diploma-setters have banded into a sisterhood at age 22, you date one you date em all. They fall hard to cocky-asshole behavior if you isolate. Wouldn’t you, after passing day to day to year to year with the same recognizable betas?

Speaking of obese virgins, I found this gem from whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com. If you need a good laugh hop on over.
“I am a virgin at the age of 23…I feel that because I’m overweight, people will dismiss my virginity, saying, “well, yeah, she’s fat, of course she’s a virgin,” instead of realizing that I have some very real anxiety issues tied to men, dating, and sex,”
-Fatties gonna fat.
Runner up; “I need feminism because women are only validated as “strong” if they don’t act like traditional women, preferring to act like males instead. I need feminism because “feminine” traits are seen as weak”
-Wimminz be crazy.

Speaking as a secular shut-in, this has the stamp of truth upon it: “‘Two, and most disturbingly for the anti-gamer, their assertion denies the possibility that players *are* meeting chaste women, but that these women, accustomed to the limp company of their beta orbiters, are so overwhelmed by the player’s sexy vibe that they become a bit less chaste for the night (or many nights).” Try explaining this to men though. lol

I might be a little odd, but I enjoy depriving myself of things, whether it be certain foods or going to the movies or whatever. Then when I do eat a steak at my favorite restaurant or see that movie I’ve been waiting to come out, the experience is simply more encompassing. The same applies to sex.

I might be a little odd, but I enjoy depriving myself of things, whether it be certain foods or going to the movies or whatever.

Try Lent, “secular shut-in.” Your impulsive and quirky one-off efforts work better when you graft them to a communio of like-minded friends. Whatever your belief or disbelief, group reinforcement of behavior is the key to discipline, as even secular (and therefore constricted) support groups indicate.

Prayer, fasting, abstinence, and alms giving are spiritual triathlon training. You need to be familiar with the extremes to more naturally navigate unexpected challenges.

Chastity is not virginity. Being chaste does not mean being sexless. Like “virtue,” “modesty,” “liberty,” “rights,” “righteousness,” “discrimination,” “ambition,” “wilfulness,” “notoriety,” “charity,” and even “love” itself, these are terms that have been misappropriated ever since they were forcibly stripped of their original meaning for purposes of “liberation.”

Chastity is a capacity for self-control. Chastity is the ability to manage consequences and dictate behavior through a program of training, no different from any world-class athlete’s regimen. Those who mock chastity are the drunks stumbling out of the bar at dawn, puking at the sight of morning joggers.

I agree it is strengthening, but I’m too familiar with extremes, really. I’ve been working on living fully all the time, not just reacting to emergencies. I agree with your ideas on chastity, but there comes a point when chaste becomes waste. There needs to be a stronger force that makes that sef-control temporarily unnecessary so that one can have a break. That’s essentially why women need men.

Bifurcated nation – I think this is correct, but Murray’s research indicates the opposite hypothesis. The women of the educated upper class (typically blue state, but not always) superzip culture have less children out of wedlock and less divorce. While not necessarily a perfect correlation, those behaviors tend to follow less promiscuous cultural behaviors. For an example of the opposite, see low income black america.

I think Murray is right: the educated class hasn’t changed all that much. It has just become a much smaller demographic. And the white working class is deteriorating.

It is still very common in the upper-middle (college) class for hot girls to highly value beta provider traits, such as Ivy League, law or medical degrees. These young women want to live in good neighborhoods, send their kids to good schools, and generally be known as belonging to the successful class. They set aside their hypergamous impulsivity fairly consistently. Sure, they have their indiscretions, but by and large, they are looking to assortatively find a mate that will provide or maintain access to the upper-middle class.

As you go down the class ladder, women seem to prefer more obvious indicators of male success and aggressiveness. Middle and working class girls like MMA amatuers, servicemen, cops, and salesmen. Lower class go for even more obvious alpha signals such as thugs, drug dealers, and tall/big guys without much reference to intelligence or personality.

What you call “beta traits”, are alpha traits to that particular demographic. Which traits are alpha and which are beta, are highly situational. And the situation is very different between an upper middle/upper class Cambridge girl, and a daughter a single, welfare dependent, project dwelling crack whore.

In “intellectual” enclaves, you can be the rockstar of the party by talking “intelligently” about Plato, while in other quarters it will simply get you ridiculed and perhaps beaten up.

I think your point highlights what is definitionally unclear about the terms alpha and beta. Is it situational, fluid and largely subjective, or is it based on objective characteristics? (provider, nurturer, good father, etc)

Take for example, the upper class girls that are looking for provider husbands. Even if being a harvard law grad is the “rock star” of that particular sub-culture, those men are still being valued for an objectively “provider” trait. Does that make them beta? Does that mean upper class girls like betas?

For this reason, I object to automatically labelling provider traits as beta. Girls like to be taken care of, they like romance, and they like caring, emotionally-present men. I think that alpha/beta can be defined by objective characteristics, but I think only by much more general, global terms. Confidence, success, outcome independence, deliberateness, risk-taking, unshakeability = alpha traits. Overly self-conscious, predictable mediocrity, needy, rushed/nervous, fearful, lack of fortitude = beta. Its not that beta is everything negative. Those traits are often prudent in a given situation.

The problem I see in comments on this blog is that they try to extend these personality traits to global statements about men in general with comments like “societies are built and maintained by betas.” Or “women used to marry betas because they valued security and now they just want badboy alphas.” These statements miss the mark. I don’t believe women have ever been attracted to the general beta traits I listed, and more importantly, I think societies and families have been built and maintained largely on those alpha traits in men, not the beta traits. But the aloof badboy high school drop out is not alpha, most likely. Some might get the incorrect notion in reading these posts that to be a successful, attractive, thoughtful and intelligent guy is to be beta, while being a high school dropout that rides a motorcycle and acts aloof around chicks is an alpha. Its possible that could be the case given any two men, but highly unlikely. This is just my opinion but it highlights the difficulties in trying to use alpha/beta in a meaningful way.

I think the common denominator here is perceived status and common background. However, women, as do men, want it all in a mate, and they want it all in a way that is stimulating to them alone.

In the case of the Ivy League analogy, the women who suppress their libidos to marry a successful beta, don’t usually have good sex lives and their men naturally have a crappy one as well. So in that sense, those men are betas in the sexual arena. Yet a man who knew how to press those same prudes’ buttons would have them giving him head on demand. That man could be a Harvard lawyer or a construction worker, the skills sets are mutually exclusive. So as defined here, on this blog, the Ivy league men would indeed be beta unless otherwise demonstrated.

I think the point Stuki makes is that in the subculture of upper class young women, the ivy league lawyer is “alpha” and they respond to them as such, even if objectively those qualities are provider qualities. They are the “rock stars” of that particular subculture. This would suggest that alpha status is culture-dependent, and not objective.

On the other hand, I think alpha/beta can be defined in objective terms, regardless of culture, but only in very general personality-trait terms. Using the ivy league example, the fact that the man is perceived as a great provider does not determine where he sits on the alpha/beta continium. The fact that he is an ivy league grad most likely means that he is confident, successful, articulate, intelligent, socially appropriate…i.e. alpha traits. In his subculture, he is dominant. But omegas graduate from ivy league schools all the time as well.

The point i’m trying to make is that to say that provider=beta is taking it a step too far. In itself, being a good provider is indicative of several alpha traits and is generally a positive with women. But its certainly not everything and you need to look at the general personality traits the man possesses to determine where he sits on the alpha/beta continium.

It seems to me you are bending so far over to make the “alpha” vs. “beta” objectively measurable (by some other means than notchcounts), that you are basically saying winners are alpha, losers are beta.

I simply don’t see the point. Much of what currently ups ones notch count, like being an asshole, simply is not the historical norm. Nor sustainable. What is currently (in DC,as well as other parts of the world) beta, is often exactly those traits that makes someone trustworthy to other men. Meaning those possessing them would be more trusted in commerce, common defense and other civilization building activities. While some asshole constantly trying to boink other guys’ wives, would simply be left outside the gates to fend for himself, or starve. And being a starving savage, too poor to afford weaponry, is not particularly alpha; no matter how much of an asshole one might be.

Now, in our current dystopia, the requirement to behave decently in order not to be either expelled or whacked, has largely been removed. Which has given pretty much free rein to those solely looking out for number one, i.e. the assholes. Giving them an historically anomalous share of societies goods and status. Which women have picked up on, since they are specifically evolved to pick up on such things

But, if you change the external environment to one where people get called on their assholery, being an asshole will no longer result in higher status, and women will pick up on that one, too. In which case, being an asshole will be beta.

But things go further than that. “We”, whoever that may be, don’t have some consequence free choice between a “brutal” free for all society where assholes get purged by those capable of building and obtaining superior weaponry; and one like ours where assholes and dregs are supposedly “cared for”, but where assholery gains you some advantages. The second option, which is the one “we” currently follow, by channeling societies resources towards assholery instead of productive pursuits, over time renders it too weak to withstand challenges from societies who pursue the former strategy.

So, in sum; we will return to an age where assholes are no longer alpha; the only question is whether we will do so by internal discovery and modification, or it will be forced upon us by less dysfunctional societies from outside.

“as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes”

Few people I work with don’t have a degree, and most of them are real degrees (i.e., science/engineering. ones that provide for real jobs). Yet most of the women are obese at best. Many of them are big enough that I suspect they quell any erection in a 1/4 mile radius.

Feminism has made them all feel like they don’t even have to try. I think after they leave college, they get this “if we’re all fat, they still have to sleep with some of us” though process.

Not true in the red states. Lots of hot evangelical girls are brainwashed very thoroughly and are into the abstinence movement. They wait well into their 20s before either getting married, or giving up. Although I’ve known plenty who played the “technical virgin” card as well. And plenty more who gave it up to their longterm bfs/fiances prior to the wedding night.

Mmhmm. Since I was one of “these girls” (in a state that has three times as many cows and sheep as it does people), I know exactly how they were/are brainwashed. And brainwashing it is. Which is why they get hitched early and then end up divorcing and leaving their families in their mid-30s / early 40s. Happens over and over and over again.

Thank god I escaped Hickville in time to avoid irretrievably messing up my life with a failed marriage and 3-4 kids floating around by the time I hit my late 20s. I know way too many of “these girls” who are in that boat. Poor things.

“Thank god I escaped Hickville in time to avoid irretrievably messing up my life with a failed marriage and 3-4 kids floating around by the time I hit my late 20s. I know way too many of “these girls” who are in that boat. Poor things”

“Mmhmm. Since I was one of “these girls” (in a state that has three times as many cows and sheep as it does people), I know exactly how they were/are brainwashed. And brainwashing it is. Which is why they get hitched early and then end up divorcing and leaving their families in their mid-30s / early 40s. Happens over and over and over again.”

I don’t think you can class it as brainwashing. At least, not as long as you don’t cast the particular inculcation/socialisation of liberal/leftist secular norms into the masses of society to not be brainwashing.

The fact is, all groups inculcate or socialise their particular group’s norms into those members of its group. One can’t really consider that brainwashing, lest you consider all groups to be guilty of it, even the one that you now consider yourself to be a part of.

In fact, I would argue, were it not for the top-down enforcement of leftist/quasi-marxist norms by hostile elites in our modern society, then pretty much everyone would have espoused and adhered to norms similar to those which you were brought up with, as it is those norms which emerge organically in the absence of social-engineering, as it is those norms which create sustainable, successful and cohesive societies. So by that standard, one could argue that the particular norms you grow up with are the norms that exist in the absence of brainwashing. They are the first norms from which all other ideologies try to alter/socialise away from.

By the way;
socialisation=socialization=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization

Yeah, because if I’m not settling for the very first beta who comes along in my one-horse town and spawning 10 kids with him, in order to divorce him 10 years later for the next loser in line…then I MUST be sleeping around.

Moron. First, learn to spell. “Loser”, ironically, has one “o”. Not two. Unless you really think that people marry “loosers”, as opposed to “tighters”.

Second, soooo… apparently you that women who get married and have kids are not chaste. Because that’s what you just said. Maybe you should look up “chaste” in the dictionary, so you know what it means? Look up “loser” and “looser” while you’re at it…

Bitch you’re always bringing a useless shitstorm anytime you come in here and spout your shitty insights.
Can’t you just leave this place for us like-minded men, or are you just another attention whore who craves the fucking drama?

Waaaah, waaah. I have been having a perfectly civil and “like-minded” conversation with Heartiste himself and several other fine gents below in this same thread. So I guess that would mean that you’re not like-minded with THEM, now, wouldn’t it?

Idiot. You people should learn how to read. Then move on to basic comprehension exercises.

Repeating the request to the admin to ban the bitch, or at least issue a warning. Not as a personal vendetta, but because anytime she brings her stinky ass in here, there is at least two feuds with at least 5 male commenters. Neecy was more feminine and less confrontational and yet…

Her sense of superiority isn’t exactly groundless. Be being here seeking truth at all, she puts herself ahead of most women in the English speaking world, in my opinion. Being that she is differently minded, it is very prudent for her to wait for someone who she admires rather than settling for someone she feels is, or who is objectively, beneath her.

Hypergamy is a very natural and not always bad trait in women. Same with territorial feelings in men. You must understand that because you are naturally territorial, you are able to date and commit to someone who is crucially inferior to you both intellectually and morally, without regretting your decision. Your natural role as leaders in a family unit mean that only your specific needs come into play when it comes to whether or not you should choose someone more or less functional in practical ways.

Women, on the other hand, each and every one of us, are incapable of loving someone we do not admire on some level. If our standards are unrealistically high, then we bear the consequences of our choices. It doesn’t make us bitches, just inaccessible to men we do not admire…and maybe cat ladies someday, but I’d honestly rather be a catlady than a worn out old bitter cunt taking pity fucks from dirty dick lowlives because I can’t see my life without any kind of male attention I can scavenge.

At least a cat lady sometimes picks up a young stud with a kind heart here and there from salsa class.

I’m co-signing with Anon. Whenever crumpetess intrudes into the manosphere, which is a place where she obviously has no business being, she always bursts into hysterical tirades against several members with whom she doesn’t agree. Allowing crumpetess to post her demented rants is akin to allowing a registered sex offender to give a lecture to junior high school children about sex education. In other words, it’s insanity.

Based on her other posts that I’ve read, her response to my above paragraph is all too predictable: she is going to hysterically rant about how she has written other posts where she was able to contain her neuroticism as a type of red herring fallacy to cope with her explosive cognitive dissonance. For her to criticize the so-called logical errors of others but then go on to make one of the most common logical errors in the book in her subsequent post reveals a lot about her subpar intellect, which she vastly overestimates like most other lunatics suffering from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Oh, and crumpetess: the next time you wish to make a point, you need to ensure to actually make an argument that is supported by credible evidence instead of spewing über babble such as, “Those girls are brainwashed! Just trust me! I know they are!” Had you actually bothered to do your research on the subject, you would find statistics showing that the more sex partners a woman has prior to marriage, the more likely her marriage will be afflicted by instability and subsequently end in divorce. Source: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/why-sluts-make-bad-wives/

Crumpetess was making a really simple point that girls get married too early in red states, and that she avoided that trap. What gives with the hate?

Hear, hear. Crumpetess is caught between the only two ideals presented to modern girls — purity ring or cock carousel — both untenable in very different ways. Now the scales are beginning to fall from her eyes thanks to websites like these. Take it easy. Don’t channel your frustrations onto an open-minded ally.

How she conducts herself, and the choices she makes, will be very important supporting evidence on the viability of a third way for the future. I hope she updates regularly.

I’m in the ivy league – and hypergamy is rampant here. These girls get around!!! Even the shy, reserved types. It’s believable that many of the males are virgins but I guarantee you a smart girl won’t report that time she was too drunk to make it home and just had sex outside instead.

Smart girls have just as much sex, smart guys don’t. Smart girls just know how to deal with potential baby issues better.

My experience is that they made out with a lot of guys, but were pretty selective when it came to sex and relationships. Has that changed? Are they coming out of undergrad with double-digit numbers now?

We will never know what their true notch counts are. In fact, some of them don’t even know, given the fact that some black out with the guy they fuck.

Maybe its just me, but the girls aren’t very selective when it comes to sex. I usually get no resistance at all after bringing them home, and in fact its sometimes me who stops THEM from going all the way on the first night. My dick is sure as hell loving it thats for sure.

The beta line of thinking would be “she’s tipsy, she is not making a sound decision, she is a good girl and probably doesn’t sleep with guys on the first date normally. I’ll save her from her lapse of sound judgement and just spoon all night with no sex”. Then she goes home and does double penetration with a couple of african fuck buddies later that night.

False rape accusation is no joke at the Ivies. At my alma mater it was all about Take Back the Night, rape culture etc. Constant marches and rallies and awareness-raising sessions.

The campus feminists released a quarterly rape journal where anonymous female students wrote memoirs and poetry memorializing their sexual assaults. Only about 1 in 5 were traditional rape scenarios; the vast majority were accounts of laying under some drunken frat boy, having silently withdrawn consent at some point in the encounter without letting him know – usually too “frozen” or “stunned” to say no or express even mild resistance.

All I could say is if a man were raping me, there would be absolutely no ambiguity about my violent and total lack of consent. He would pretty much have to kill me first.

“Let’s export it to countries that really need it (cough*saudiarabia*cough)”

Saudi arabia doesn’t *need* feminism, no one does. They’re closer to a sustainable model than us.
Except if we want them to collapse on the long term, then exporting feminism sounds like a brilliant idea.

Anonymous, I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s my firm belief that any society that tries to marry off nine-year-old girls to their father’s thirty-four-year-old buddies — under threat of stoning and/or death — is in dire need of some female empowerment. Please recognize the humanity of that statement.

There’s generally a lot of damage after a natural disaster. I keep a clean house. Who’s going to pick up after that mess? In all seriousness, I’ve had that kind of offer before, but its most likely totally impractical and unless it has the chance to lead somewhere, do you really want to hear me cry about it?

I was just making the point that the average commenter here wouldn’t save you from their cock. I’ll admit I’m a bit amused you interpreted that comment as an advance though. Thank you for the impromptu hamster demonstration , it lit up an otherwise boring evening.

Oh. lol Happy to please in any way I can🙂 Although I might disagree with you. People are always growing a conscience around me. Its highly annoying. It happens so often I created a term for it: Casablanca Syndrome.

My theory is that virgins are more likely to be Mormons or Hindu immigrants. These are better-educated groups. Small groups like this could be driving the data, given how low the virgin numbers are.
So, pretty irrelevant if you’re hitting white girls outside the Mountain West, as I am (sorry, Mom!).

Mormons for sure. Many (not all) are unusually (for our dystopia) chaste. And at the same time have the work ethic and upbringing that strongly correlates with obtaining credentials. Also, Mormons, when they do finlly get it on, are much less likely than the common herd to be shooting blanks, so there is a growing share of them around amongst the ranks of the college aged.

Mormons are great. May as well call them white American muslims. It’s hard not to admire a group of migrating polygamists who arrived at the shores of a barren, desert salt lake and said “AH! NO one will fuck with us here! TIME TO UNPACK!”

A quick note – in my moderate experience, the girls that go from Team Southern Conservative Prude to Team Blue tend to carry the slut flag the furthest. This has proved to be a good marker of if I should push hard and early for sex – if someone grew up in the South, has moved out of the house on her own, and has found her way to my corner of Chicago…. Go for her. The same was true when I lived in Portland, OR and Boston, MA.

So far my luck with such women is about the same as those that have daddy issues – they want a strong figure to control their life, call them on their fuck ups, and then give them a good fucking late at night.

I once knew two sisters, both smart and cute. One was a prolific slut, the other, at 30, a virgin. (The slut sister informed me about the condition of the other.) The virgin was a successful attorney and very religious. Apparently she just couldn’t meet the “right guy”.

Granted, this is one data point, but it got me thinking that there is a rare type of woman out there: SWPL but with traditional values and high impulse control who can’t navigate the contemporary urban fuck and suck scene. They want to save themselves for marriage but no high-status male (she roams in the world of high-status males) will put up with her for long if she doesn’t put out. Nor, however, will she settle for a beta for marriage. She doesn’t miss sex because she’s never had it and is terrified of it. So she exists independently, disappearing from normal social life behind enormous work hours, all her “friends” mere colleagues and clients, who never get to know her very well. Occasionally this creature relaxes on her expensive sofa to watch Mad Men (she is SWPL, after all), dreaming of another era when just such a prude as herself would still be a catch. She isn’t a cat lady; she is a worker lady. She is secretly in love with one of the top, married partners in the firm and won’t put out for anyone else. Alas, her secret love is too high status for her; he can get younger, hotter, tighter mistresses who also pose less exposure risk in the workplace or the marriage than this one would.

Not mythical. There are many more of these women than you think. You hit the nail on the head when you said “no high-status male will put up with her for long because she doesn’t put out”.

It’s a terrifying place to be: virginal and unwilling to give it up to anything other than Mr. Right. I’ve seen good women grow old and hit the wall this way, without ever even stepping on the “cock carousel”.

[heartiste: interestingly, the more undesirable beta males become to women, the more leverage the top 20% alpha males have over women. thus, it is entirely plausible that aging SWPL virgin women exist, because they didn’t want to settle for a beta, but equally couldn’t get an alpha male, whose world is filled with more choice than ever thanks to the retreat of beta males from the dating market, to stick around for more than three sexless dates.

the conclusion should be obvious: make beta males more attractive to women overall, and the top women will have an easier time locking in alpha males for committed relationships, since those alphas will feel a little more pressure from their striving beta brethren to accommodate women’s long-term desires.]

I think that’s only fair. I honor women who are chaste. However, when there’s a real connection there, and they artificially block the cocka because of some religious doctrine, I find that to be very self-centered. A woman can tell after 3 months if the guy is legit about her or not . If he is and he treats her right, she needs to demonstrate what kind of wife she will be in the bedroom.

In civilized societies, people somehow manage to get along in the bedroom without any premarital demonstrations.

The problem with putting out before marriage, is that some guys will find a way to fake the “legit” part. Those will be the alphas of the day.

If it’s marriage or celibacy, guys will settle for the former. Particularly if marriage is backed by the bride’s father, brother and uncles; all of whom have both familial honor to uphold, and the common sense to arm themselves properly.

However, when there’s a real connection there, and they artificially block the cocka because of some religious doctrine, I find that to be very self-centered.

It is self-centered and therefore worse than useless. A (young) woman’s purity cannot be indemnified by herself or by her grasp of “religious doctrine.” Her grasp not only cannot encompass the depth necessary for conscious behavior, it is too weak and tentative to hold at moments of high or even medium stress. Such as a drink or two with a tousle-haired beta.

No, the only possible defense of a woman’s innocence is men acting on her behalf. Hypergamy during “sexually ripe years” is not meant to be controlled by the subject. It is meant to be exploited. Our only choice is whether we exploit it in such a way that allows for the continuation or dissolution of civilization.

So re crumpetess’ angry aging slut wannabe below, we wouldn’t expect anything less than “heartbreak.” The beta men in her life let her down by imagining her fidelity to a list of bullet points was sufficient in a culture that pulls her sharply in the opposite direction. Those limp-wristed kumbaya fundies she calls “father figures” passed the buck. As if the responsibility to navigate between the Scylla of whoredom and the Charybdis of prudery could be placed on a teenage girl interpreting doctrine during this 40-year tempest of cultural upheaval! One thing we can know for sure: her dad was a serious pussy.

In fact…I heard a woman give a talk on this once. She was mid-40s, slim, and although she was not ugly, she was a “Plain Jane”. She had bought into the Christian purity scene in her teens/20s/30s and had never had sex. At all. Not even the “technical virgin” type of sex. She was waiting for the good, Christian man to come along and marry her.

Her talk was about how angry she was at the church, for deceiving her into giving up her sexually ripe years. She said that if she’d slept around a little, even if she never married, she’d at least still have the memories of what it was like to be sexually intimate with a man. But at her age, she is unlikely to ever even have that now, and if she DOES have it, it will have none of the juice and vigor of youth.

If you’re introducing unattractive women with trainwrecks for lives to them,
or trying the “pacify with platitudes” / “it’s your attitude” tack, yes, that would be an insult.
Kind of like telling a starving Ethiopian that if they weren’t lying around or uneducated, they’d be well-fed.

On the other hand, being with a woman who only considers you a tool to get ahead in life, isn’t so hot either.
To make things even funnier, women who call guys losers … are the ones unable to get the relationship thing done right.
Kind of sad, those who have the opportunities who keep squandering them.
Even sadder are those who pay for someone else to screw up.

I’ve been that guy for a couple of girls in my past. Why wait them out though? One of them had a purity ring and everything. She still did sexual favors for me. But why wait to be in a LTR to hit it when I can hit 4-5 other girls during that time?

I can understand that some people who have girls on the side are able to wait out the prude – but why? Those hours I spent hanging out with her and watching her hamster spin at full-tilt to rationalize herself out of sex could be better spent playing video games.

“They want to save themselves for marriage but no high-status male (she roams in the world of high-status males) will put up with her for long if she doesn’t put out”

This strategy works if she find the older high-status, wealthy guy who’s tired of sowing oats and is looking for a low-mileage womb to plant babies into. (Once the girl hits 25, she probably should be rethinking her strategy though.)

The funny thing is a real player will have a fuckbuddy or two on-call, and might be more likely to wait out the good-girl versus the average blue-balls chump.

“The funny thing is a real player will have a fuckbuddy or two on-call, and might be more likely to wait out the good-girl versus the average blue-balls chump.”

This is important.

The reason I don’t get much LMR anymore is because I legit don’t care if I bang the girl or not. I have other girls on call and if I don’t have any other girls I know I can get more easily. So if she resists at all I can just back off and legit be cool with not fucking…which makes her decide “okay I want to fuck him”.

This is a positive side-effect of having an abundance mentality that affects a bunch of different parts of your game and your sub-communications.

A needy blue-balls AFC can SAY he’s okay with not getting laid, but she KNOWS. lol When you start out learning pickup though, you have to fake it till you make it. That’s why we stress trying to put yourself in the mindset that you have 20 Playboy models at home all wanting to bang you…you don’t, but you want to give off the vibe that you do. Down the road when you DO have more success with women, that vibe will internalize and you’ll have a lot less work to consciously do.

That’s well put, and gets to CH’s point about “sociosexuality”. That is, the more casual you are about casual sex, the more likely you are to have it.

However, a real good-girl is going to ‘LMR’, even if you’ve got her so horny that she’s leaving a wet spot. (Because, if she was easy, she wouldn’t be all that good, would she :D) So, this is where the player has a big advantage, because he can be all cool and sociosexual and “down with whatever you want, baby”, while even the high-status ‘good guy’ will get so desperate that he’d lower himself through begging and cajoling.

So this leads to the fucked-up situation where the good-girls either get played, or they end up dominating their mate (whom they divorce and fuckover), or 1/100 times they win the lotto. But hey, that’s modern dating!

Not at all, you just described one of my best friends. She is pretty, intelligent, and very religious. She always wanted to find the perfect alpha Christian man for marriage, but in reality she just seems terrified of men and their beastly, hairy sexuality. When we were teenagers she had an “ideal man” list with over 100 points – everything from “6’2″ or taller” to “has no hair on his chest” (eww!) to “never has impure thoughts or uses swear words”. Basically an asexual alien. Every real man who approached her was rejected on the grounds of not being pure and holy enough for her.

Surprisingly she never found this unicorn, and now she’s 30 and quite bitter about the whole thing. She’s never kissed, dated or held hands with a man. She watched all the guys she rejected at church marry women without 100-point checklists, and as intelligent as she is, she realizes she missed the boat at some level. She’s now realizing her only chance at finding love is to lower her standards drastically, but that would mean admitting the whole thing was a waste of time…

…yeah, it’s painful to see harsh reality hit a fundamentally decent person in the face so hard.

If she was fundamentally decent, she’d have noticed more of the good men in the circles she travelled in.
Unless she’s trying to claim moral superiority with the “sinners”.
She missed the boat on purpose … ’cause she didn’t want to pay the fare of being with a guy not out of her fantasies (does she even know what he looks like? Get thee to an Identikit!).

This is a perfect example of a young woman out of her depth attempting to apply doctrine in a culture actively hostile to it and without benefit of her male superiors (and mother figures) showing her a viable path through the thicket.

Tiger Beat + Gentle Jesus = Ideal Husband!

It is also the mirror image of the PUA’s constant mistaking of religious male for beta male. The naive girl and naive PUA share the same erroneous image of a hairless sensitive demifag as the model for faithful men. Only teenage Bieberites and ignorant players would make this mistake. Although, I can hardly blame them, considering that many of the most visible religious men of recent yesteryear contributed to the misconception by going the way of the weepy shrinking violet when attempting applied theology post-Vatican-II-style.

The religious male is patriarch, leader, head of tribe, and vir. He is more refined than alpha wolf because his subjects are not slaves to animal undiscipline and can (contingently) depend on such discipline to assist in the successful enforcement of his rights and responsibilities. He is the freest human being possible.

I think the problem in some Protestant evangelical circles is the application of predestination to finding and marrying a suitable mate. The idea is that God’s “perfect plan” for each one of us includes a pre-selected spouse, and all we need do is wait for that spouse to come along. I remember as a child, my mother telling me that there was “a little boy out there” who God was grooming to be my husband. It’s not a biblical idea, but it still seems to have some legs in the church.

This makes many Christians, especially women, feel they don’t need to be proactive in attracting men. This idea of simply remaining virginal and waiting for a man to come along may have been a good sexual strategy in the past, but it is disastrous for many of them now. I would need to pull up statistics but I was reading in several places that churchgoing women now significantly outnumber churchgoing men, and in addition many of these women are no longer virgins (or are “technical virgins” only) and aren’t above using their sexuality to land a Christian husband. I know quite a few religious women whose “lie back and wait” strategy caused them to become bitter, virginal spinsters, wondering why God’s perfect man never came along. They never took a chance on any of the imperfect men around them, because they were waiting for a male model with a Bible to sweep in, bathed in soft golden light, as trumpets played and angels sang, “This is the man you are going to marry!”

I recently mentioned my best friend’s dilemma to my dad, and he said, “I’m not surprised that girl is still single. She isn’t attractive at all.” I protested that she was very pretty, and he said, “I don’t mean pretty. She just doesn’t seem interested in men. I can’t imagine any man wanting to approach her. She would judge them and send them packing. Any man in a 10-mile radius can pick up on that.”

Their “lie back and wait” strategy is actually “lie back and wait and criticise/ignore any who dare approach with the “I’m a nice girl and you are offending me” attitude”.
On the other hand, those women are ignoring the fact that maybe “God’s perfect man” is waiting for them … in the afterlife.
Notice that the saying doesn’t specify WHEN the man becomes available to her.
Oh God, You humourous fellow.🙂

Very subtle and theologically astute, Spiralina. I have no experience with Calvinism or applying obscure doctrines like sola gratia or predestination. They sound like an especially devious kind of torture.

The church, properly understood, is the golden mean between paganism and puritanism. Your testimony demonstrates the dangers of listing toward the latter. Scrupulosity is every bit as destructive as hedonism, if much harder to prevent and detect in the earnest believer.

This makes many Christians, especially women, feel they don’t need to be proactive in attracting men. This idea of simply remaining virginal and waiting for a man to come along may have been a good sexual strategy in the past, but it is disastrous for many of them now.

I wouldn’t think it was ever a “good sexual strategy” for women to be inert. How much more I could give to the various women who are obviously interested in me but lack all courage to speak plainly about it. Granted, courage and directness are not a woman’s forte, and it is understandable. But given that her choice of man is the single most important decision she will ever make as a woman, it is off-putting to see how little they want to risk exposing themselves. The smallest confession of this vulnerability has exponential power in attracting a man. What could be more attractive to the egotistical male than a woman’s agreement that his ego is justified?

Romance for a man is important but not essential to his nature. Romance for a woman is constitutive of her nature, now that we have linked motherhood and marriage to the romantic imperative (rather than the familial prerogative, as made more sense). Romance is not just important to her, it is all-important. In the best romantic stories, we get the sense that a woman’s soul is at stake in the decision — which is why our love stories today are so adolescent compared to the classics.

Modern life has asked women themselves to bear the burden of their most important decision alone. They are given nudges but little guidance, suggestions but no dictates. Of course most women will freeze up and make no decision at all! Like your poor lovelorn Protestant evangelical friend. If you tell a girl she can wait, she will wait (cohabitation). If you allow a woman to defer, she will defer (Mr. “Right” vs. Mr. Right Now). If you tell a woman she can put conditions on her choice, she will put conditions on her choice (adultery, divorce). Women are not decisive.

Men are better decision makers because the expectation comes early for boys. We are better equipped because we are more familiar with the consequences of indecision. (“Where do you wanna go tonight, honey?” “I dunno, where do you wanna go?” “I dunno, wherever you want to go.” “Well, where do you wanna go?”) We are more analytical and more prepared to take responsibility.

The marginally attractive girls who are too afraid to go “all in” and demonstrate their utter dependence before we even think about reciprocation — why bother with them? The inertia smells like stagnation. What else do they got? The evangelical girl’s beta-dad castrated himself, sidestepped his manly duty to be the courage of the family, gave his child a pamphlet on “God’s Perfect Plan,” and called it a day. His daughter has been left to grow balls or else live a life of slutty spinsterhood. It’s sad and so perverse.

Given the above refutation of the player selection bias theory, I suspect that it is true to some minimal extent that men who actively bed a lot of women tend to miss the virgins, who are, after all, not very likely to be out anywhere in mixed company. And the reason for this may be that the ranks of female virgins include a lot of grossly ugly or obese girls who are ashamed to be seen in public.

Most likely. If a woman in her 20s is a virgin, unless she’s the 1% or so who belong to religions who believe premarital sex is wrong, she is a virgin because no dude wants to stick it in her.

Girls who major in math or other male-oriented tracks are probably overrepresented in this group.

Not so, the few female nerds I’ve seen almost always have male nerd boyfriends.

“Most likely. If a woman in her 20s is a virgin, unless she’s the 1% or so who belong to religions who believe premarital sex is wrong, she is a virgin because no dude wants to stick it in her.”

The percentage of “seriously” religious people are growing. And it’s not “no dude”. It’s “no dude” she finds alpha/worthy enough for a princess like herself. Going by what “some dudes” are paying good money to wank off to on the internets, I can’t imagine there exists a single mammal, male or female, human or otherwise, that “no dude” would be willing it stick in into.

Yeah, I think it’s wishful thinking on the part of men who’ve been rejected by ugly girls to imagine that they, well we, are somehow unable to get at least a dick, and often a relationship with that. I mean, look around. Are all the women you see with boyfriends hot?

A woman in the western world is only a virgin or chaste at all by choice or threat of death or disownment by family.

Nicole and Stuki, I think you both are in denial if you seriously think that there aren’t ugly, bitchy warpigs out there that only desperate knuckle-dragging Quasimodos and total omegavirgindorks would even consider screwing.

I don’t know, Corvinus. It’s just that I’ve seen some things…horrible things.

There are some girls who, if I was a dude, I wouldn’t shoot a mummified dick out of a rocket launcher at from 1000 yards away, and yet someone not only shags them, but is obsessively in love with them.

I mean, one girl even has only maybe five teeth left, and those are rotten. I can’t even sit next to her when she’s smoking because the stench of her breath even overrides burning cheap tobacco. Her skin looks like you could scrape the soil off her with a spoon and grow cabbage in it.

Yet somehow a very sweet natured paramedic with his whole life ahead of him at a mere 28 years old, is in love with her. Imagining what must be writhing around between those putrid flaps aside of him makes me want to wretch, and yet he taps that every chance he gets.

…and she is not the only one I know who is legitimately hideous, but has a dude I wouldn’t mind getting with if I didn’t know his history.

Granted, I have learned from this that the male capacity for love is grander than that of any other creature on Earth because even a dumb rooster won’t bang a chicken with a broken beak. It gives me hope. However, it does make me somewhat cynical at the same time because it makes love seem kind of random and I feel rather unlucky. I think this is some of what kept me from adjusting my behavior until relatively recently because I felt like, “I can’t win so fuck it.”

For some reason, all the guys who love me are either taken or broken. Yet some of the ones shagging the walking dead seem relatively whole except maybe for a dirty hag fetish.

“Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN.”

huge lols over here at that one. SO true!

The number of girls I “don’t count” with and the things I’ve done with them that “don’t count” is retarded. Their current/future guys will have no idea what their innocent angel has gotten up to in the Secret Society.

I’ve actually structured part of my game AROUND using this concept. You know what one of the easiest lays is? Telling a girl who’s into you but has a boyfriend/husband that you have a girlfriend. Instantly neither of you “count” to the other (in her mind) so she opens up and escalates the situ FAST. Like that wave of relief washes over her that you’re in the same boat as her and she doesn’t have to count you as “cheating” because you’re attached and COULDN’T replace her BF.

This is also why girls I meet who are single when I meet them, continue seeing me guilt-free when they DO start dating a guy and get into a serious relationships. I’m set up as the guy who doesn’t count.

Guys who think hot girls aren’t getting laid are dumb. They’re not getting any less laid than you would be if you had dozens of women a day trying to fuck you. But they’re careful about picking guys who don’t count and guys who won’t result in any social repercussions. Ex-BFs, casual fuckbuddies who aren’t a part of their social circle, the cabana boy when she’s on vacation, guys of a different race or who are poor or who have a wife or whatever else is an “automatic” disqualifyer from being boyfriend material to them, etc.

They’ll never admit this on a survey tho lol fuckin science nerds. Half of them could probably pass a lie detector, their hamsters are so powerful.

“Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment. Now getting commitment from men… there’s the challenge.”

And the stake of brutal truth is wedged through the heart of the vaginal hamster treading on the rationalization wheel.

Nothing short of amusing to hear women complain about the “double standard” and perceived unfairness that men are valued for successful promiscuity and women are devalued for it.

Women that are marginally attractive or above can achieve frequent sex from men for merely ‘existing.’ Skill is required for marginally attractive men (and above) to achieve the same frequent sex from women.

Expanding from above:
Ladies, the challenge for you isn’t achieving semen in or on you, but making a man whom you are sexually attracted to, also sexually ‘commit’ to you. And don’t mistake ‘commit’ with attention whoring from beta men; which also requires no skill.

(A contrarian might argue that fat women, given their lower sexual market value, would more readily put out for men in hopes of gaining their commitment and love. If true, that would work against higher virginity rates for fat women.)

I think it does account for higher STD rates and out-of-wedlock births among fat women. Especially fat black women (who are, in my opinion, a total waste of humanity).

However, it would not tell us much about the supposed higher virginity rates of educated girls, as it is a safe assumption most truly grotesque fat chicks shamble among the lower classes.

I’m almost certain this is true, based on anecdotal evidence. I’d guess that obesity among sorority chicks is well under 10%, as opposed to People of Wal-Mart and those lining up at unemployment centers and soup kitchens.

Since religious girls tend to socialize in venues (like church) where players are rarely found (imagine a demon stepping foot on holy ground and immediately bursting into flames), it’s reasonable to conclude that male perception of college girl sluttiness is skewed by the religious de facto shut-ins.

True. If you’re a hard-core beta, join some fundie church and you’ll be swimming in cute chicks. At the loss of your soul. A Faustian bargain some are willing to at least try, I guess…

A woman might be confused or depressed if the man does not attach meaning to what happened. Meaningless anything is deeply unsettling to women. Having sex itself means nothing. So, meaning must be applied. This may take a few days to construct. A woman should not be interrupted during this time in which she is constructing her reality🙂

idk … I don’t understand women who are able to have sex without checking whether the guy is going to stick around or not. I mean, you FEEL it when somebody really means it or when he just wants to use you for sex.
I still don’t understand why women have casual sex. I think it’s mainly because of the societal pressures (feminism) but I also know women who are so stupid and naive that they believe men are the same as women (they believe that men too can’t separate sex from love) but this is again a feminist idea.

No event has meaning until we attach meaning to it. Men are just less concerned about attaching meaning to things than women are. Sex is just one example. I am a slowly reforming diehard romantic. I’ve become more of a scientific romantic in the past year and a half. If you’re like me and you’re not interested in the casual sex route, you have to play smart and break patterns if they don’t get you the result you want.

I don’t think we have to attach meaning to sex or that women are more “concerned” about attaching meaning to it. Sex is probably one of the most important events that happens to our brain so it always has a meaning … You can get pregnant from having sex (even if you don’t attach any meaning to it).

I would be very hesitant to put weight on the results of a study that relied on women to honestly self-report about their sexual histories. I never tell the truth about my “numbers” (although largely I manage this through omission–simply refusing to discuss them–rather than by actively fibbing). I seriously doubt I am alone, because my motivations to lie should be more or less universal.

I lie about my sexual history not because I feel guilt about it; guilt is internal and I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. (Giving and receiving pleasure with however many adults will consent, in my opinion, is not wrong.) I do this because I feel shame about it; shame is external and I know that there are many among my peers and in society at large who would see me as a lesser person because of my choices.

By contrast, I am generally quite truthful and straightforward when it comes to other matters.

no, simply being honest and true to oneself. the guy can interpret that as a slut tell, and she, if she picks up that vibe from him, can spare both of them the waste of time having anything further to do with him.

In my case, certainly. However, some of my peers may refuse to discuss it even when their sexual history is actually quite brief. I had a friend who was horribly embarrassed to admit to me that, by age 26, she had slept with a grand total of four men…one of whom she married, and whom she allowed to believe was her second. (This because she couldn’t credibly claim to be a virgin.)

This is why you’ll open up about that stuff to a guy who demonstrates the attitude that he won’t judge you for your sexual experiences the way most of society will… He creates the same comfort as posting annonymously in a blog comment section: you won’t be forced by social pressure into feeling shame for something you don’t feel guilty about in the first place. Classic Secret Society concept.

This is also why the guys with the Madonna/whore complexes and the “any girl who’s had more than 2 partners in her life isn’t marriage material” guys will never ever know about this side of you. They’ll never truly KNOW you even if you date and marry them.

This is a really important thing for guys to focus in developing if they want to really push the boundaries of game and social dynamics and REALLY understand the female psyche. I know more about a woman after we’ve had sex once than her significant others, friends and family who’ve known her her whole life know about her, because I don’t judge and she can open up.

It’s like the Joker in Batman talking about how when he kills with a knife he sees what a person is really like and so in a way he knows them better than their friends do. But, you know, minus the stabbing. Except with my life giving battering ram. lol

Oh no I agree. I lie too. Reality is I won’t settle down with a girl who crosses specific lines in my own preferences. But I can put the poker face on and create the comfortable judgement free vibe no problem because I understand its importance.

I started doing it as a way to find out how at risk for STDs I’d be with a chick lol “oh ya you banged that guy from the bar last weekend? That’s so hot babe you’re so dirty i bet you fucked him raw too didnt you, I know you love when a guy cums inside you” and then they rattle off a list of like 10 guys they’ve banged raw that week and I never txt again lol

I was referring to the guys who have those rules and can’t hide it (LOT of those guys in these comment sections and on MRA sites). The loud blowhard guys who talk about being a big player but very clearly have mental blocks that keep them from being as big a player as they pretend to be.

Once you’re in the bedroom with a girl, intimate and nude, it is -stupidly- easy to draw the truth out of her like poison from a wound. That vulnerable state begs a man to take command of the conversation and makes the telling of secrets an act as passionate as sex itself.

You can be the “nonjudgemental confession booth,” the “playfully stern inquisitor” or, my favorite for modern women, the “sexual peer.” The key is to reward temporary honesty with heightened sexuality. All of us understand that women are fiendishly sexual beings: if you compell them to be honest in a situation where they can’t hide, without a serious threat of reprisal, they treat it as a comfortable break in the facade and pour through.

There is something wrong with destroying your ability to remain attached to one person for significant periods of time. You’ll learn that when your looks fade and the only sex you’re getting is from your cat.

Just write them off as bad/shallow investments until proven otherwise.
Trust and respect are earned, why not love and fidelity too?
If you’re right, you’ve avoided being shackled to someone who’s seen more pricks than a cactus farmer,
If you’re wrong you’re pleasantly surprised.
I fail to see the downside of that principle.

‘- The “technical” virgin. How do girls rationalize their lying about their sex lives? By inventing false truths. Anal and oral sex among young women are way up, but hey, it’s not the vagina, so STILL A VIRGIN.’

well…when i was growing up, she was. oral sex was just becoming common (and a very titillating thought if memory serves) and was used to placate the guy into not insisting on the ‘real thing’, IOW a ruse to delay. oral sex was considered a pale imitation of PIV sex, the ‘gold standard’. if it can’t get you pregnant (w/o contraception), it’s not real sex. the thinking was that it was an extreme form of heavy petting and nowhere near to being in the same league as the main event.

It hurt the first time because I ended up basically impaling myself up my rectum on his cock in the back of his car. It was like sitting on a spiked fence pole. I cried with the pain and shock. But we got to know how to do it more comfortably. He fucked me missionary anal (my legs over his shoulders) a fair bit. That was my first LTR.

My current guy uses me like that when I am on my period, sometimes. He prefers from behind. It still hurts a fair bit on entry, so we don’t often do it. If I feel especially submissive, I might offer it. He usually refuses.

It can get messy and disgusting afterwards. And it hurts the girl sometimes. It is OK as a fantasy but not in reality so much.

Yep, what I’ve mentioned here a few times, ALL girls LOVE to submit to a dominant man. The problem high testosterone girls have is that often they can’t find a man dominant enough to trigger mating behavior in them.

So, just like ABO Blood Groups, where there are “Universal Donors” and “Universal Receivers”, so are there types of girls and guys.

Polish girls I would say are Universal Receivers – as almost any guy can trigger her submissiveness. So she can be turned on by a broad spectrum of guys.

Among guys, some groups are Universal Donors, like Irish especially and probably Italian and maybe Greek, in that they can trigger attraction in most girls.

So Polish guys are going to have a tougher time of it, due to their relative lack of dominance. Meanwhile Irish girls are also going to have a tougher time, trying to find a guy who is dominant enough.

I myself am FBI – Full Blooded Irish – I was born and raised in the Emerald Isle, came to the US as a young man.

I realize the blessing that this has been to me, as attitude and demeanor which are natural to me, are learned behavior for many guys in the US.

it seems most guys on this site struggle to free themselves from the shackles of feminist indoctrination, and attempt to become Alpha, meanwhile what is labelled as Alpha, seems like just being a regular guy to me…

The blokes I have been with have been very strong, traditional types. Old-style patriarchs. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

We gave up on the anal partly for moral reasons. I told you I am planning on converting to Catholicism. He wants me to start going to Latin Masses with him, the kind where women still cover their heads. I might look cute in a chapel veil. Those places really keep women in their place! The veil thing, for example.

If we ever do get married, it would be good to be of the same religion.

That was your mistake, you shouldn’t be ‘impaling yourself’ he should be impaling you. Make sure he spits on it first so it doesn’t hurt *too* much going in🙂 When a guy knows how to do it right, there’s nothing like it. Maybe it’s my Greek heritage lol, but it’s one of my favorite things, and one of his too. It’s rather mind blowing for him, which is also why I like it and crave it if it’s been awhile. We also do it during period week, and it’s something I look forward to. BTW I’m 45 and he’s 54, happily married.

Messy and disgusting? Wow, that’s part of sex isn’t it? Are you a prude? A clean freak? Who cares, that’s what showers are for.

@That Guy

Yes he’s Greek and dominant. He was very beta when I met him, after living in feminized Canada for 30 years, and having a bitch first wife. He has rediscovered his natural alpha. Thank god.

Bitches stop talking openly about your fucking sex life. This is not a place where betas and swpl bangmachines discuss their sexuality.
This is a place for men to brag, and for bitches to contemplate and worship the majestic male essence.

Jeez, hearing a girl’s stories about anal plowings by random dudes is digusting.

He loves that word impale, by the way. He has taken to making me say things like “my head is impaled on your cock” as I suck him from above in bed. He likes the way my words come out with a mouth full of cock. He finds it funny.

But, for moral reasons, we both prefer these days that he finishes in my vagina.

OK, That Guy, I took your advice and bought a couple of really short skirts on the way home from work. I got a couple of funny looks from the salesgirl. I suppose she thought they were for a girl younger than me. Hope it was worth it!

I have been trying them on in front of the mirror from various angles. I wish I could dance like in the video! They are not as short, but they don’t cover very well LOL.

I think that can happen to intelligent chicks they over think the whole thing and expect perfect knight in shining armour when he doesn’t show up by college end it becomes more dificult for them to meet him plus expectations are insane.
Expecting cinderella meets prince but you know there are only a few of those in world.

One of the earlier Devlin articles frames the issue in this way: women whose self-esteem is swollen by feminism and/or related entitlements price themselves out of the SMV- refusing to “settle” for *any* flesh-and-blood male, pining for the perfect one out of the romance novels.

This is pretty similar to the point above about the “work lady”, except for the point (made by several commenters above) that certain women are afraid of their sexuality and can’t handle it very well. This is a form of insecurity, and so the opposite of feeling “too good” for any real male. The fact that it’s ridiculously easy for women to get laid.

This is what happens when you leave the most important decision of a woman’s life to the woman herself. She defers and defers, dithers and pines away, aging and debasing herself “accidentally” in the many years of wayward intellectual meandering. She is not equipped to make good decisions and, even worse, she cannot recognize a good decision in front of her face, with hypergamous “grass is greener” syndrome constantly whispering in her ear and the “paradox of choice” contributing to her dissatisfaction and trumped-up regret.

No, in this feminist era, she has been required to grow old and grow out of her prime years before making a decision — the cruelty of peak female sexuality coinciding with the nadir of adult wisdom. By the time she is old enough to receive cultural sanction and to acquire the experience to make a non-catastrophic decision, her moment has passed and now she must “settle.”

The only solution to this is her lifelong submission to proper, loving (fatherly) male authority, which can objectively guide her skewed decision-making capacities into happy alignment. How can we possibly get the modren woman to become comfortable with submission again? Well, fucking them into enlightened compliance one at a time is not a bad Lexington & Concord moment. It’s called “heightening the contradictions.”

“the cruelty of peak female sexuality coinciding with the nadir of adult wisdom”

Peak female wisdom evolved to coincide with lots of dependent kids to care for. The decision of exactly who she happens to be hitched to is generally better left, like you say, largely to others anyway.

“How can we possibly get the modren woman to become comfortable with submission again? ”

Worst case, just wait. Those comfortable with divinely sanctified sex roles (not really submission as much as complementary roles) have always done the “go forth and multiply” thingy better than those not; by a healthy margin. Consequently, as promised, they are the ones who will inherit the earth.

… (continued) might reinforce that particular psychology. Add the congintive dissonance a woman with these traits might feel in dealing with today’s hypersexualized pop culture and you have the recipe for a distinct sort of fucked-uppedness-in-the-head- distinct from shyness or coyness or prudishness. Interesting topic, perhaps, for a future post.

As a note on very religious girls, they’re not necessarily harder to sweep with game. I’ve been lurking here a long time and while I rarely comment, I felt like this would be a good time to address a subject I’m pretty experienced with.

First, alphas don’t burst into flame by stepping inside a church (or at least I never have, and most of the guys I know consider me to be the most alpha they know). I tend to be a more “thrill-of-the-hunt” type guy which is how I balance being religious with game. Kissing a girl some, then just walking away with her dripping for you; I’m ok with that.

Second, religious girls don’t always have the same kind of defenses against game. The “if-we-get-caught” slut-shame is much higher typically, but the “detect-play” abilities of religious girls are often underdeveloped. Religious girls are particularly gameable with “feeling special” and vulnerability game. “Children that look like their father” is also especially likely to break down a religious girl.

I’ll let you judge my alpha cred though. I’m divorced (she got fat so I quit sleeping with her), with two daughters. Not only did I not pay her, during the divorce I had the kids about 80% of the time, we now have a 50/50 split AND… she still has to pay me child support. When I go back to work, I should be making between 3 and 4 times what she makes, but I’m not going to until I put the final nail in her coffin by proving in court that with such income disparity the kids are obviously much better off with me full-time. I plan on winning a total victory for male rights and I’m not going to stop until I have it.

Another thing I wanted to mention (but forgot) is the trend among religious girls toward “reborn virginity”. It’s become a popular theme among certain circles to say that “if you ask God to forgive that you slept around like a $2 whore, you can still become a reborn virgin and it’s like you never did anything wrong.” It’s more hamster rationalization food and an excuse to treat the (mostly) beta and omega guys roaming the halls of religious establishments with an unwarranted air of superiority.

can’t really argue with you there. but given human psychology, it’s better that such women not be burdened with hopelessness and continue being sluts. giving them a little something to hold on to might encourage them to ‘go and sin no more’.

The biggest problem that I with that rationalization is that these “reborn virgins” have their shame erased along with the guilt. Without that ‘smv reduction’, these women can once again look down on men as inferior (because after all, a man doesn’t get to be a reborn virgin.)

This one is the ten-course gourmet dinner of hamster rationalization food, complete with dessert and several wines. There is no rationalization bigger than this and whoever invented the concept of “reborn virginity” should get some sort of awards for perverting the language.

I could start with the myriad lies, ranging from false accusations of rape to going to the police asking for an order of protection because I supposedly hit her with a pillow to claiming that my daughters need to be taken away because without her here to protect them that I would hurt them. Or perhaps it’s that she claimed to have been sexually abused by her father, and then took our children to visit them, after which the girls claimed they had been abused too.

But really, I don’t hate her. She’s stupid and thinks she’s entitled to all the “rewards” of the current anti-male bias. At this point though, she’s just collateral damage in a war against the gender bias that excuses attrocious and egregious female behavior and punishes men for proving that the system is hypocritical. The only way to fix the issues is to fight them, and that’s where I am… on the front line in a war against the misguided female belief that you can, in fact, have both feminism and chivalry.

I agree. No good parent would expose her children to that, especially if she herself has, in fact, been abused. But it’s very dangerous for a parent to disbelieve a child, especially if they are young. Young children seldom lie about abuse, unless they have been specifically coached.

In point of fact, I took it to the child protective services here. But they ignored it, because we were in the middle of divorce. Despite the claims being reported by the kids to two different counselors… I believe them, but I’m very angry at CPS here, since they’re completely incompetent.

Sorry to hear that. Props to you for believing, and for following it up. Unfortunately, it seems like CPS is very often incompetent. Awful stuff. Really hope you can keep the kids away from the creepster criminal grandpa in future.😦 And again, yes, their mother sounds very stupid and negligent.

The CPS is the government. In other words, much, much worse than simply incompetent. Perhaps short of running them through a meat grinder, I cannot think of anything worse to do to a kid than dragging those degenerates into their lives.

Indeed, jironghrad’s approach is one way to exploit the vulnerable hen-house the Protestant church has become: in bitter lupine revenge to gather as many of them into KFC buckets before they figure out the wolf is in building and peck you to death.

Or, you can think more than one step ahead, purchase the hen house, and become a man with eggs for life.

I just haven’t experienced jironghrad’s bitterness. I have little motivation to pursue or understanding of so short-sighted and self-destructive a path. Let me know how the soul murder/suicide approach goes for you. It sounds really clever, bro.

I don’t know if it’s so much bitterness as outrage. I have a very strong sense of fairness and the abuses I’ve witnessed on my road set my hackles up in all kinds of bad ways. Matt is correct though, given the low number of alphas (and let’s face it, men period) in the Protestant churches, that they’re highly vulnerable.

You buy the proverbial hen house by acting like a man inside the church. That is, you become the father figure who keeps vigilant on the walls, giving predators like you the treatment they deserve: a shotgun to the head. You can fool the confused little girls. But we know who you are. We are who you are. Which is why we do not have the slightest compunction about disposing of you appropriately.

Protestant ministers (and many Catholic priests) who have wandered from the solidarity of the Magisterium are always taking advantage of their position as shepherd over their vulnerable flock who comes to them for protection. Martin Luther King, Jr. fucked groupies three-at-a-time. David Koresh. Jim Bakker. It’s hard not to take advantage. The wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Women are attracted to the church as sanctuary. The sanctuary has long been penetrated and looted, with beta males standing by while their women are raped by the invaders. Men are attracted to the sanctuary as well, but they are no longer in any real sense of the word “men.” They are spectators, enablers, quislings, cowards, and collaborators with their cuckolding rapists. It doesn’t take too long for a woman to figure out, despite all the advertisement to the contrary, they are as defenseless inside the “sanctum sanctorum” as they are outside.

You “buy the hen house” by defending the hens. They will then owe you more than just their sex and their hearts; they will owe you their lives. How and whether you leverage that debt is between you and your God. Right now, their refuge has been busted wide open, a pile of splintered wood and chicken wire. Did you know that chickens are so dumb that they will drown themselves in a rainstorm, staring to the heavens in open-beaked fascination? “Free range” poultry indeed.

What you describe is perhaps almost more like a wolf in shepard’s clothing. That’s also an interesting approach. It would be simplicity itself to transition into something like you’ve described. I haven’t (though I’ve thought about it) because I suppose I see it as the height of hypocrisy to say something and actively pursue the alternative. I do what I do well-enough that it has never caused me a problem and I’ve been there for the entirity of my life.

“When I go back to work, I should be making between 3 and 4 times what she makes, but I’m not going to until I put the final nail in her coffin by proving in court that with such income disparity the kids are obviously much better off with me full-time.”

free legal advice: don’t post stuff like this if you’re still in court

Thanks. I’m not involved in the divorce any more. Divorce was final back in January and… there’s a good reason that I haven’t gone back to work yet. A reason that is her fault. That’s all I can say right now, but it’s a damn good reason.

lol growth rate can be quick maybe college chicks are getting a graduation present now that includes reconstructing the hymen for a 100 bucks oversees now. Can’t even believe your eyes nor what you think is reality anymore.

For the Player Selection Bias. One have to also factor the idea that while you are getting girls from of all types, locations, and venues – the selection is not just by location but by receptiveness too. The club sluts have a decent variety of backgrounds too right?

However, it sounds about right that it probably becomes a non-factor where in the early 20’s. My past experience that the most likely girls to be virgins tends to be Asians and nerdy girls (which a good portion lacks in looks fat or not but controlling that). Seeing that Asians tends to be be in higher numbers the higher in rankings in college as well as nerdy girls. That might explains a lot question about virginity and education while explaining the counter-experience as nerds is highly correlated to education and intelligence, but there’s plenty of smart girls who not at all nerdy.

I don’t think talking about virgins vs non-virgins is all that interesting. It’s way too binary. A girl only needs to be fucked once to become a non-virgin.

It’s more interesting to generalize and discuss relatively celibate vs relatively slutty girls. For example, chicks who have that one special boyfriend and are then celibate for years before they find somebody who measures up.

I think the difficulty is that once someone gets past a certain age they get set in their ways, a bit like learning to drive late in life. Seems to affect women more than men.

Also the virginity thing might make some men quite nervous (a pattern seems to be that they’ve all told the men they were virgins on the first date) and even for those who relish that kind of thing deflowering a 39 year old virgin (or even a 29 year old one) is not quite the same as if the defloweree was in the flush of youth.

It’s funny, virginity being one of the few metrics that people can make sense of in general its tactical literacy that is vital in todays meta for the expendible man.

How to conserve your resources, make a meaningful difference in life, attract women (that are worth the investment), and see your immortality cast in either child or legacy. It’s all the same flow. Once you get to a point of tactical literacy (thats just a short way of saying you know what to do 80% or so of the time to get what you want without much effort) in each of those fields you can start looking at sexual interaction between the two genders.

I think we just have a bunch of children way the fuck too old to be children running around which is another reason why these statistics mean about as much as this post.😉

Few months ago I met a gorgeous christian girl, grad student, early 20s, who claimed she was saving herself for marriage, and that she didn’t even want to “go into the grey zone”… “for a very long time”.

Date after date (usually her place, to watch a movie) I slowly progressed, from kissing her….to sucking her tits, massaging her ass…to fingering her. But she has resisted my cock. She hasn’t even seen it. She won’t take it out of my pants.

She’s so fuckin hot that I keep pursuing her. But fuck, she’s alright with me pleasuring her, but my cock’s off limits? Retarded. I’m way too busy to meet another chick for the next few months, but how do I persuade her that it’s in her best interests to stop this selfish pseudo-prudish bullshit and get to work on my schlong?

Previous advice was solid (dump her), but more input would be great…dumping her would be my move in any other case.

You’ve known her a few months and no sex yet?
And, you seriously can’t meet another girl for a few months?
She doesn’t want to (what?) “for a very long time”?

Sounds dangerously like friend zone, man. You’re never going to be able to “persuade” her it’s “in her best interests” to do anything, and definitely not like this. Alphas don’t act like this.

Best bet is get another girl on the side immediately, let her discover that, flirt with other girls in front of her, act dominant, inspire some dread by mysteriously disappearing… the usual fare. But if that doesn’t work relatively quickly, it’s probably incongruent and it’s a lost cause. Cut your losses.

Specifically pay attention to Rule 4 which he explains more in Part 2 where he explains the Freeze Out. Read on thru Riker’s Rules for the conclusion where he talks more about Timing the Freeze Out and combining it with Riker’s Rules.

In your situ I’d have the lights dim, music on, escalate with her and finger her till she’s right on the verge of cumming, then pull out my dick and try to put her hand on it. If she resists then I’d zip up, flip the lights on bright, turn the music off, turn the TV on to a boring News/Sports channel, sit down where I was but with my body language turned SLIGHTLY away from her (closed-off, only takes a couple degrees worth of a turn), not touching her, and act like she’s not there or is a dude-friend and just watch the TV. Not angry, not mad, just taking away all the fun we were having.

When she asks what’s wrong or accuses me of just wanting sex I’d give a brief explanation (this isn’t a discussion, I’m just saying this is how it is, no big deal) of how I respect her rules and don’t want to get worked up, it’s cool shrug, we can just watch TV. I have specific stuff I say for this that’s congruent to me, you’ll have to figure your own shit out…try starting with Riker’s Rules and experiment from there.

On a side note, you wouldn’t be in this situation if you had run tighter game leading up to this point. Your escalation was solid, but you didn’t handle her particular ASD so you’re getting LMR. In your defense her particular ASD is going to be hardcore because it’s based in religion…you’re not convincing your buddy who didn’t feel like drinking tonight to have a beer, you’re convincing a guy who killed 3 people in a drunk driving incident and spend 10 years clean and sober in AA to have a beer.

Something you should consider yourself is: Are you going to just pump and dump her? Is that going to leave her better than you found her? Are you prepared to deal with the aftermath if you DO fuck her? She’s going to be clingy because you made her break her religious rules so to avoid feeling guilty and slutty and like she’s going to burn in hell, she’ll have to demand a “serious relationship/marriage” Ultimatum super early on in an attempt to restore her own image in her mind. Are you prepared to handle all that and help her feel okay with what you two did? Or will you just end up settling into a serious relationship with her when she Ultimatums you? If you DO ditch her, are you going to just leave her feeling like a piece of shit as you strut off carving another notch in your belt? Is it really in her best interest to fuck you? Are you a prize? Will fucking you make her life better or will it fill her with regret and guilt and make her feel shameful?

Or are you just looking to bang this one because you’re desperate?

Also this snippet from the articles above makes me laugh:

“TIME the freezeout CORRECTLY.. this is hard to explain over the internet, but once you’ve tried freezing out like 5-10 chicks you’ll have the hang of it like a sixth sense..”

How many guys here would risk a lay that’s so close to happening, basically throwing away 5-10 different girls who are one their couch letting them finger them, just to experiment and learn some calibration? Now that’s having an abundance mindset lol

Thanks for the good replies. Appreciate the links and input YaReally, quality stuff. I don’t want to deal with the consequences of banging this girl. Her religious beliefs are intensely serious. But a handjob–some kind of sexual stimulation– would be good… If I don’t “get off”, I feel like I’m just a toy for this chick, it’s not real intimacy. There’s another girl in the picture, but I don’t give a shit about her. The religious girl holds me in thrall. Anyway, peace out.

Something noone has mentioned yet…the trend in Christian circles of “flirt to convert”. Is she trying to get you to go to church with her, Bible studies, etc.? Has she gifted you with a copy of “Mere Christianity”? If so, you may be a candidate for a different sort of notch count…

lol also that. Seriously. That’s why before you throw the freeze-out you try putting her hand on your cock and “helping” her, incase it is just a fear of not knowing what to do. If she responds well, you don’t freeze her out, obviously lol

In this age, even the most religious uptight virgin has glimpsed at enough internet porn to know what is expected. It’s more that taking any sort of initiative is ‘slutty’.

Tiger — there’s lots of different ways you can have the “sex or gtfo” speech. But, if you frame it in terms of positive emotions and intimacy, you will probably have better luck. Remember, feelings are reality.

solid advice .. about the consequences after you win her prize ..suddenly ? ..eventually she may not be all that interesting anymore ..depends on how easily you become bored or exciting she is.. reminds a bit of Dangerous Liaisons ..the ultimate film of player peril ..he falls in love with his victim

Inexperience. Tiger, you need to lead her, you need to make the moves, but lead her step by step, not 0 to 60 in 3 secs. When things are hot and heavy, just pull it out. Seriously. I’ve seen way too many women go from “oh I don’t know if we should be doing this” to “omg, yes” after it’s out. Don’t expect a pro bj the first time. Don’t force anything. Don’t even expect to get off the first time. Whatever she does with it, make sure you tell her how much you like it and how well she is doing it. When she hesitates, tell her what you want, tell her what you like. And Tiger, teach her well.

yeah, happened to have listened to radio morning show, and a middling porn star was on, turns out she grewup in Fredneck, Md., said her and her slutty slut friends were sluts and Fredneck is pretty far away from Heartiste’s mecca of lawyercunt sluts and PR sluts.

I see that this concerns male-female relations. Women being inherently bisexual means that most of these college “virgins” are probably carpet-munching co-eds who are holding out for an alpha male in the meantime. It’s also a way for them to keep their cock ticker down and therefore come off as some innocent virgin type.

I was a virgin until age 29, unless you count a few encounters with hookers. No girlfriends and scarcely a hook-up through high school and college, a couple of mild fooling-around opposite sex buddies and a few drunken non-intercourse hook-ups in my twenties. Didn’t have my first real lover until I was 29, and that was short-lived. Didn’t have my first real girlfriend until my mid-thirties, and that was sexually unsatisfying for the most part. Now I’m in my early forties and have my first sexually fun girlfriend but I’m not all that into her and she’s too fat with the lights on.

A sad trajectory, alas. And I’m a bright and talented guy and not bad looking. Why did things turn out this way? A lack of game, to be sure, but even when sexual opportunities presented themselves, as they did on numerous occasions, I for the most part didn’t take advantage of them due to shyness, nervousness, low self-esteem (and, in my younger days especially, a tremendous naivete and feminist-induced fear about what I was “allowed” to do with girls). I suppose this would be considered “inner game” and I’d be interested in getting more insight on this aspect of game. Anyway, just unburdening myself while providing some anecdotal information.

It’s not only feminist-induced. Feminism can be blamed for a shitload of things, but not for male love-shyness. Blame the upbringing (being brought up to be nice and gentlemanly is as old as the nuclear family), the lack of sound advice from male tutors and peers, the fact that men are generally clueless about what turns women on etc…

As for inner game, you gotta read the seduction bibles, and the archives in here, and the rsd forums… you can’t find all the answers in a single thread.

I think it’s gross when guys sleep with prostitutes to lose their virginity. What a mistake … Why would anyone do that? Just because you are ashamed of being a virgin? Why guys believe it’s a shame to be a virgin if you are a man? This is really sad … If a guy I liked told me that he slept with a prostitute I’d be extremely repulsed – not only because it’s disgusting and dangerous but also because I believe that men who have the ability to sleep with sex workers are unable to understand or to connect with women in general and are therefore not only damaged goods but completely useless and disgusting.

If you are a guy who did that in the past you need to start feeling guilty and ashamed and then become an anti-prostitution activist. That’s probably the only way to repair your SMV.

I knew three virgins in their twenties; a 7 an 8 and an 8.5. Keeping their hymens worked for them since they all wound up married/engaged to their first plunderers, whom they had well trained. One was neurotic, but the other two were smart and charming, but not flighty. It’s particularly funny since one of the trapped men had cast aside many women before he was beaten

I don’t buy the “they’re all fat” theory, since even the most bloated, cigstached manatee can get her pick of Omega minus jockeys, and spawn.

I’ll tell my daughters that keeping their flower is a good strategy if they want an alpha husband: No carousel for them

Ah, but isn’t this what men are claiming they want: loyal women? That is really all her actions demonstrate. I’m starting to think men have the same delusions about wanting nice girls that women have about wanting nice men. They think they want them, but they don’t.

Don’t try to sweet talk me, Redleg. I sprayed on an extra layer of Charm-Repellent this morning. Besides, I prefer CupKate🙂 Now, feet to the fire, please. Did you forewarn her of that? If so, all’s fair in love and war. If not, reap what you sow.

In Japan loads of women stay virgins…I’ve dated several of them. The last one I met had one long-term boyfriend, but he was stressed out studying at a top law school and couldn’t or wouldn’t do the deed. Very typical. Incidentally, I sexed her up soon after meeting her and she remained appreciative without being at all clingy. Gotta love Japan.

If you just want to sample the Japanese wares, you can run club game and expect similar success that you might have in the US i.e. you better bring game to score the 8s and 9s. If you’re older than 30-35 I’d suggest lining up a nice 30 year old spinster on a dating site before you arrive, should be really easy.

Here is a message that a slender, attractive, childless, 42 year-old career woman sent to my profile on Match.com (what a waste of time website!) along with my reply:

Hello, my name is ……., and after reading your profile I’m intrigued.

My profile is purposefully vague, so little bit about me:

I’ve been blessed with a successful, professional career in the corporate world for ~20 years (Information Technology Director for a prominent managed care company, then owned my own business), but I’m an artist at heart. I draw, paint, play piano, and enjoy creative endeavors of any kind. Cooking is also something I enjoy, and I while I like going out, I love nothing more than making a nice meal at home for someone I care about. I’m comfortable at a black tie event, but most of the time you’ll find me in girl-next-door blue jeans and a white t-shirt.

Volunteering is also a passion, and several years ago, I took some time off to volunteer at a community center named after my grandmother, and a ball park named after my grandfather. It has been 33 years since my grandfather passed, but my grandmother is 98 now, and I’m thankful to have that time with her doing work in the community where I grew up. I’m very close to my family, and giving back is very important.

I exercise almost every day in some way or another. Living three blocks from …….. University, I will run around the campus or hit the bleachers if I don’t have time to get to the gym. Things I enjoy: Reading, live music, art galleries & museums, ………… Theatre, Gallery …….., cooking at home (including sushi, which I do 1-2 times a week), dancing, exercise, gardening, volunteering, travel, driving with the top down, riding with friends, kisses that last for hours, and doing almost anything outdoors, whether it’s something planned or completely spontaneous.

On the music front: I try to get out to hear live music as often as possible, and was on the Board of the ……….Music Society for many years. I also enjoy going to the ………….Folk Festival every May, and ………. Fair & ……. Duck when the mood strikes; I also attended the Jazz Fest in New Orleans for the first weekend. (Everything from Cowboy Mouth and Al Green to The Beach Boys and Springstein.) Collecting vintage guitars was a hobby for a while – 1944 Martins and other acoustic instruments. No, I’m not a hippie, nor a folkie, rather, an old-fashioned, conservative girl, who loves life and positive people.

I have an adventurous spirit and love exploring new places & old favorites, and I’ve been fortunate that my career offers flexibility to travel. My mother is Italian (…………), but born and raised in Mexico, and we criss-crossed the country (Mexico and US) growing up, so I love being on the road. We usually drove to Acapulco every summer (Are we there yet?!); however, at some point, I started spending a month or two with my cousins so I could learn to speak Spanish. Entiendo todo mas o menos, pero no hablo bien porque me falta practica.

In short: You’ll find me to be thoughtful, introspective, affectionate and passionate – love to kiss, cuddle and hug – and would like to meet someone special, someone with whom I respect, someone with integrity, confidence, and knows who they are; dull blades need not apply. Though I’m extremely conservative in many ways, I choose to live life without regrets, and believe life is not a spectator sport. My passion extends to many aspects of life, but at the end of the day I’d like to come home to my best friend.

That being said, do give me a call if you would like to chat. If not, I wish you well in your search.

Cheers,

…………..

Thank you for your thoughtful email. You have many varied interests and you have filled your life with work and numerous activities. But at the end of your life, what does it all mean without the experience of being a mother and raising a family? Is anyone in the corporate world going to care about your 20+ years in IT? No, they will just replace you with another worker bee who will continue to feed the corporate machine. Will any of the low-life, do nothing, welfare masses remember that you donated 50% of your hard work in taxes while starting your own business? No, they will continue to spew babies who grow up with no education who continue to parasite themselves on the working class. You value family and you are very close to them, yet you never chose to have one of your own. You fill your life with all these extra-curricular activities, but at the end of the day what does it mean if you don’t have any one to share it with?

Unfortunately, American women have bifurcated into two groups: (1) careerist females that are holding out for the ultimate “Brad Pitt” alpha male and won’t give regular guys a chance while they get older and older. (2) uneducated, promiscuous single moms who go nightclubbing and idolize Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.

Luckily, I can afford to travel out of this country and meet women who have not been fed this feminist agenda of imitating a man. I could care less about a woman’s career accomplishments. I value feminine traits such a dressing up, flirting, being coy, taking care of the house and home, and allowing a strong man to lead.

That was really vicious and unnecessary cruel, man. I like railing on that demographic group in general because of the bad average traits that it manifests and will not hesitate to lay down the hammer on a bitchy woman, but she approached you and wasn’t entitled or moralizing about her life. That’s way over the top.

Both messages are equally ridiculous. Its important to note that SHE opened HIM. HE did not show any interest in her whatsoever and she wrote him a novel of information he never asked for. What the heck is there to say after a message like that? The better route would have been a one line tease. Unless its a mail order bride scenario, keep it short and INTERESTING. Otherwise its just a resume exchange.

I know that people here look down upon online dating, so let me explain.

She goes on about herself because it’s a canned message. Notice how she doesn’t mention anything about the dude’s profile – it’s because she only skimmed through it.

The guy is the pathetic one here because he spent time writing a response to this woman when her entire investment was probably close to 1 minute.

Guys do that online all the time. And why shouldn’t they? A random profile online is not worth the time investment until they reciprocate some interest. I occasionally got the same exact emails from guys after 1-2 months if I didn’t respond to the original one. People can’t even remember who they send these things to. That’s just how online dating works.

… kind of a shitty person … cringed at the pointless cruelty … really vicious and unnecessary cruel, man … way over the top … shitted all over someone … bitter, butthurt and shitty … I don’t get why you felt the need to unload your frustrations with society on this woman. … rather unnecessarily mean …

Don’t listen to the beta peanut gallery, J. They just can’t appreciate your more pure expression of fuck-em-all alphatude.

Hello
Thank you for your messages. I will admit to being taken aback when I received your initial note, however, my first reaction is you are correct about society and women today; the “progress” has been detrimental. Most put their career before their husband and their family, hence, the values you and I grew up with no longer exist.

That isn’t me; rather, circumstances gave me a career of 20+ years. You see, I quit my job to focus on starting a family many years ago, and after several years trying to conceive, learned my husband was not able to have children. It’s a long story, but that’s when I threw myself into volunteering, giving back to the community, and creating programs for children.

My Match profile says “probably not” to children, because it is more important to me to find a partner and best friend, and if we decide collectively to start a family, then that would be wonderful.

I feel as though I’m rambling. This would be so much easier to discuss over coffee, which I would love to do if you are willing to meet. Again, I agree with you. We have more in common than you think.

Best,

………….

Hello again ……
To add to my previous message:

– It seems most women say they are looking for someone to make them happy.
– I am looking for someone I want to make happy.

If you understand that, you may even enjoy chatting over coffee. The ball is in your court.

I can’t believe I am actually writing this but I positively agree with Matt King…..on this particular issue. Your email friend was, in my experience, on the more polite end of female (however deluded) initiators. I couldn’t believe how many women clearly indicated potential mate preference younger (often by 10+ years) than themselves and had the “strong, independant woman” headline. What a freak show. Occasionally I would stumble across a somewhat feminine sounding woman but they were incredibly rare. Most of the profiles were of the resume sort. I would rather they listed bra cup size in their headlines. Heh! Having said that, my further experience is that on Match, provider traits are aggressively screened for by women making traditional player game very difficult so J’s frustration is clearly understood. Re: YaReally’s “shitty” comment – the women I have met from there mostly had their head super locked in to screening/interviewing and I had fairly minimal (though some) success with gaming into SNLs or less than 3-date f-closes. I have better SNL and ONS results with cold approaching.

PS YaReally’s comments (and related links) are hands down the best on the site and are appreciated by someone who games regularly. The insights by Tyler and RSD are incredible, especially for someone who’s game may have plateaued. My club days are probably a decade behind me but the mindset those guys share is still very relevant.

The older virgin women I’ve seen have strong and strange religious beliefs and would give it up for an alpha (there are enough evangelical alphas to sweep them up by their sophomore year) And having been sent to U of Utah for grad school, all the junior and senior women weren’t virgins (or at least they were married.) However, less common religious women may not know many men who aren’t related that share their beliefs.

It’s to safe to say virtualy all middle-aged virgins are incels. Whenever you bump into such a person it’s usually pretty clear from looking at them why they’re a virgin. It’s like someone who complains they forever having trouble landing a job and you can tell they lack any particular ability for anyone to want to hire them.

One of the things fat does is turn T into estrogen, so these fat women are not only sinking their SMV in the short term, but making it that much harder to climb out of their predicament(T is the get shit done drug).

Men lie about their number of partners too. If we think about the remarkable power of preselection in generating attraction, it would make evolutionary sense for virginal men in particular to be strongly inclined to hide the fact at all costs, right? So they definitely wouldn’t feel much like disclosing that shameful fact to random people who they don’t even know. Which means that the actual number of male virgins might be higher.

The problem with these studies is that there is no way to study this in a way that is both
1) reliable and
2) anonymous.
Is a young man who is still burdened with his virginity (and further, believing that all his friends already lost theirs because he read it in the newspaper) going to admit this on paper if he knows that his identity will be known to the people conducting the survey? Not necessarily.

There’s a close link between the stress pattern of I could care less and the kind that appears in certain sarcastic or self-deprecatory phrases that are associated with the Yiddish heritage and (especially) New York Jewish speech. Perhaps the best known is I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often “I have no hope of being so lucky”, a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning. There’s no evidence to suggest that I could care less came directly from Yiddish, but the similarity is suggestive. There are other American expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means “Don’t tell me about it, because I know all about it already”. These may come from similar sources.

You’d be surprised how many female virgins there are out there. We just don’t like to broadcast it, because in this day and age, it’s becoming almost as much of a taboo for a 20-something woman to be a virgin as it has always been for a man.

Case in point: I am a 22-year-old virgin. Recently graduated from college. The 70-30 proportion of females to males certainly didn’t help things, nor did the fact that I’m really only a 5. Not fat, not ugly, just a Plain Jane. But I was competing with some pretty hot women at my college. Combine all this with being ridiculously shy around men and you have a problem.

That being said, I’d rather be a 22-year-old virgin than a fat slut on her 3rd kid by the time she’s legal.

“Going without sex for decades completely screws up a guy’s psyche. Permanently, I suspect.”

I’m a 42-year old virgin. You change, certainly, but I wouldn’t say you get “screwed up.” To me, masturbation is all the sex I ever needed and now, after decades, it’s all the sex I want. I quit trying at the age of 32. I got used to being alone, then I got happy being alone. Then I relished being alone and my life took off. I set my life up such that work, my house, physical exercise, reading and writing, looking forward to and planning solo vacations, and my dogs are my entire world.

I just wish that I had heard this advice earlier in life. What I really needed to hear someone say was the following:

“Yes, you are an unattractive, short, miserly, childfree atheist with sky-high standards and there is nothing you can do/want to do about it. The chances of you finding someone that (1) will accept these facts about you and still want to be with you and (2) to which you are also attracted to, is ZERO. You will never pair off with someone and you will live your entire life alone. This is inevitable and you should prepare yourself for it.”

That’s the Red Pill for omegas, and gamers who have no idea what it is like to be an omega simply don’t understand the different world we live in. It’s like birds explaining flight to fish.

Why didn’t anybody ever say this? One is profit motive. There is very little money in writing self-help books that say the reader is screwed. Two is this creeping politeness that compels people to lie instead of telling the frank truth.

sad man .. I appreciate you trying to come to terms with your situation .. but your conclusion is only true because you have programmed yourself to believe it..

it’s a big world out there.. it’s not all dystopian shit… if you have money and learn some game (social skills) ..there ‘s endless possibilities with some great women..sheesh man read some Tony Robbins or Napolean Hill

Although, your error is plain. You are a self-fulfilling prophesy. Once you conclude (or even imagine) that “The chances … [are] ZERO,” you have foreclosed all motivation for, and therefore all possibility of, improvement. Everything after you “quit trying at the age of 32” is rationalization. Needless to say, your “I got happy” is not the gold standard of human happiness but rather a reconciliation to the omega standards with which you have always identified. This is not the worst thing in the world in itself: “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”

No, the worst thing in the world is striving for a goal impossible to meet under the current circumstances, whose impossibility is impossible to detect. That’s the fate of Sisyphus. You escaped that personal hell, and God bless you for it. But it does not necessarily follow that those current circumstances will never or could never change.

Thank you for the nice words (And J and Inlone too.) As for “But it does not necessarily follow that those current circumstance will never or could never change.” I reply that it is enough to recognize that there is a small category of people that cannot or will not (which, effectively, are the same thing w/r/t to results) get the attention and affection of a member of the opposite sex that they are, in turn, attracted to. They either can’t do anything about that, or they won’t do what it takes.

There is a hole in the logic in places like this: the assumption that a 2 automatically finds another 2 attractive enough and will settle. Below a certain threshold, more and more people would rather be alone. Sadly, a lot of these people whine a lot. Few things are more annoying than the self-pity mongers that inhabit the internet.

The rational, responsible omegas in the chronically low-SMV category don’t cry and whine and expect the world to reform to us. We truly despise D@ve @lex@nder types. They give all chronic omegas a bad name – if we raise an unfortunate fact about ourselves, we get labeled a DA. Another problem with those types is their self-pity mining efforts result in these bizarro arguments wherein they attempt to *prove* to you that they are hopeless losers and people try to disprove it – as if these things are truly debatable and provable on the internet. My advice: don’t feed the self-pity energy-sucking creatures.

However, we omegas also don’t want pity. Neither do we want tired bromides either – “there’s somebody for everybody” and that noise. I guess the middle ground is for simple recognition that there is a category of the (in the SMV aspect) hopeless – in the abstract and not where membership can be specifically applied for and given on the internet – who need different, palliative advice.

“the assumption that a 2 automatically finds another 2 attractive enough and will settle. Below a certain threshold, more and more people would rather be alone.” Fortunately you are a man, and for men attractiveness is not measured on appearance. I have met some of the ugliest men (one in a wheelchair) surrounded by really attractive women. I know a really handsome guy that gets approached by women, but later the women leave when they realize the guy has no substance beyond looks. I am convinced women are attracted to status, whether real or created by game. Now are these women with these men forever? Probably not, but I doubt men and women are programmed to be monogamous for life anyway…

I’m entering that same phase which you did at age 32, getting used to being alone. It actually can be quite satisfying, the “world” you’ve set up in your life. I’m more likely to be thinking about spending time accomplishing the things I want, rather than worrying about getting a date or girlfriend.

btw, I was already screwed up to begin with, so maybe that’s what led to my own prolonged virginity.

That being said, you might find that reconsidering the atheism could add a wee bit more hope to your life.

You are rationalizing your current existence. There is no greater feeling than love from a beautiful woman. Making millions of dollars, driving fancy cars, and buying a mansion pale in comparison.

Get a plane ticket and get out of the country! There are so many places to see and nice people to meet, especially those not touched by the feminist agenda. Read Roosh’s blog. Hell, go to a German sauna club and get a professional to give you some experience in sex. Life is too short to masturbate in your house.

And you are rationalizing your chemical dependency triggered by the visuals of a fertile female and the psychological & physiological high of splooging inside one triggers in your brain.

Just because hormones are making you helpless slaves to the idiosyncrasies of the female creature, doesn´t mean everybody else has to run the same hamster wheel.
Actually some of the greatest men in human history didn´t need to.

Not that I delude myself into being of that caliber, but neither am I a slave to Hollywood romantic brainwashing and the much more crude PUA version.

What is life but a compilation of experiences. What are experiences but a chemical signal in your brain in response to stimuli. You choose to never experience the cocktail of neurotransmitters that are elicited by “love” and sex. You chose to be satisfied by the chemicals that are elicited by the mundane daily grind, which anyone can experience without any effort whatsoever. You chose to never experience the “chemicals” of sex because you cannot stand the “chemicals” of rejection. I can understand if you are making some great contribution to society that will be remembered for generations, but I doubt this is the case. After you are gone, you will be replaced at work, your house will be bought by someone else, and you wealth will go the the state. It would be as if you never existed, so you might as well try to experience as many “chemicals” before you go.

-“There is no greater feeling than love from a beautiful woman. Making millions of dollars, driving fancy cars, and buying a mansion pale in comparison.”-

I don’t doubt it. Trouble is, some of us don’t expect *any* of those things. (Life isn’t is like the movies.) And to strive for them, especially the love of a beautiful woman, only to fail, would hurt too much to be worth one more risk.
(Oh man, I just realized how much that sounded like David Alexander.)

I think you mean well, J. There’s got to be a happy medium between Cat and 40 Year Old’s happy hopelessness and your eat-drink-and-be-merry suggestions.

You HAVE to fail and endure the pain of rejection many, many times before you get the “love” of beautiful woman. You cannot press button A for supermodel. Maybe you can do it in the virtual world of video games, but it is not the same as the real thing… yet.

A handy table from a comprehensive sexual survey out of the Indiana University shows that past the age of 15, vaginal intercourse is the most commonly engaged in sexual activity (besides solo masturbation) for men and women of all subsequent age groups, ahead of oral and anal. So, at least according to self-reported survey data, there aren’t many women out there giving head and being buggered who aren’t also having their villages pillaged (and thus presumably not being counted as virgins).

More of the ‘experimental’ stuff, but mostly confined to the people who are already doing the traditional stuff, too. It’s complementary more than it’s substitutional. As social stigmas on various forms of foreplay crumble away–and this seems particularly descriptive in the case of anal sex (if this can be considered foreplay), which until as recently as 2003 was illegal in fourteen states–it’s not surprising that “front or back?” is joining “missionary or rider?” in the list of questions lovers pose to one another ahead of getting busy.

“Compared to men, the relatively low effort required of women to obtain sex is why it’s silly for them to take pride in their sluttiness; getting sex from men is no accomplishment.”

And will you lead me to where these women are most to be found, sir?

[heartiste: there’s the (non-)rub. most women aren’t slutty, despite their protestations to the contrary. and of the women who are legit sluts, they are still as discriminating as their chaste sisters. possibly even moreso. (think about it)]